To Mr. "Anon E. Mouse",

Modern steel skyscrapers DON'T FALL DOWN DUE TO FIRE. There are only 3 recorded cases in history of steel skyscrapers that have fallen down "due to fire" and they were World Trade Centers 1,2 & 7. If that doesn't raise alarms in your head then I can't help you with life.

Mr. Gmamal, You seem to be forgetting that all three buildings suffered severe structural damage prior to the fires. Two buildings were hit by airplanes traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and the third was struck by the debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

Furthermore, in all three cases, the passive and active fire suppresion systems designed to protect the buildings from fire were completely compromised.

The standpipes were knocked out in the sprinkler systems of the towers and the water mains and power systems were off line in WTC 7. Firewalls were breached in all three buildings. These things make a huge difference. in addtion, all three buildings had unique strucutral designs that are not commonly found in most other modern structures.

There is credible evidence that the emergency generator fuel supply system in WTC 7 suffered a fatal flaw that made it particulary vulnerable to the type of damage that the builind suffered when it was struck by the debris from WTC 1.

How many real strucutral engineers support this theory?

Ignoring these facts will not make them go away.

They invalidate your entire theory.

Ask yourself this: "who has the most to gain from promitng the "9/11 was an inside job" hoax?

look at who is pushing this.

What is their political philosophy? Do they promote other "theories" as well?

Just for the record Mr Anon, within days of 9/11 people told me it was an inside job, I brushed them aside as conspiracy wackjobs for the next five years. It was only after my own reading on the topic did I come around.

I have no agenda. I mourned the victims of those attacks the same as you did. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Mr. Anon.

You list off unseen "structural damage", bad sprinklers, magical disappearing asbestos, and the incredible uniqueness of these building as proof. Thats a lot of special circumstances at once!

But you offer no reason why I should take your word seriously. What kind of engineer, architect, or expert are you? Do you have any sort of special knowledge that we should be aware of?

WTC 1 & 2 really were pretty unique. They were specifically designed to withstand a fully loaded jet airliner crashing in to them! That was always the fear with those buildings. WTC 7 can be seen falling like a controlled demolition. The Dutch demolition expert Jawenko in my original post confirms that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

At some point you have to accept the most obvious explanation and stop looking for magical solutions like flying disappearing asbestos, revolutionary pancake collapses that look like explosions and *pulverize* a steel building down to the basement, office furniture that turns into rivers of molten metal, the most sophisticated air defense system in the world standing down for 2 hours failing to stop the planes...

Well I wouldn’t exactly call the structural damage “unseen.” Are you denying that there was any structural damage to the buildings?

I never said that the sprinklers were “bad.” Building fire sprinkler systems are only designed to handle typical office fires that start small. They simply do not have the pressure or capacity to operate if all of the heads on one floor are open.

The same holds true for WTC 7. After the collapse of both of the towers, the water supply in that area was severely compromised.

As for your comment on the disappearing asbestos, As I understand it, the area where the planes impacted the building had only limited use of asbestos based fireproofing. The towers were built when asbestos was being phased out. The replacement materials of that era have a reputation for not being of the best quality. In any case, it doesn’t matter, as the force of the impact breeched the drywall core enclosures and knocked the friable sprayed on material off the thin floor trusses.

You could call this a sequence of special circumstances, if you want, but then again, every great disaster is marked by sequences of special circumstances.

The buildings were specifically designed to stand up. They were no more “specifically” designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner as they were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a runaway steam train.

AFTER, and only after the building structural designs were completed did Robinson look at the effects of an impact on the structure. He only evaluated the effects on the structural design, he DID NOT include any evaluation of any subsequent fires in that analysis.

Thus to claim that the building was “specifically” designed to withstand the impact of the planes is at best being intellectually dishonest.
At some point you have to accept the most obvious explanation and stop looking for magical solutions like top secret space based ray guns, and super secret, radio controlled, nano-thermite carrying cockroaches that crawl up behind the drywall and link their little arms and legs together to form a cutting charge

Mr. Anon,

The buildings, like all modern skyscrapers, were intentionally over-engineered.

Some quotes:

(from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html )

John Skilling :

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

White Paper:

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

Frank Demartini's Statement:

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."