Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Phil Dragoo]

Oh, and in Kevin Ryan, Another Nineteen, Richard Clarke is chairing table top exercises in 1998 in which hijacked jets are flown into buildings

He will soon forecast that America will be hit in her "Achilles' heel" namely, "New York, and Washington"

I present this brief outline of the equivalent to the lone gunman with his junk rifle and a magic bullet,

in which we are to believe that buildings designed to withstand aircraft impact collapsed in never-before-seen fashion

sans heat required for the "official explanation" which, to be sure, explains nothing:

A rational look at the Twin Tower collapses reveals that the official story contradicts the laws of physics and the most basic knowledge of the behavior of steel structures, and matter itself.

• The Towers were designed to survive jet impacts of the type that happened on September 11th.
  
• The fires were not very severe in the South Tower and were diminishing. Even severe fires would not have initiated a collapse.
  
• Skyscapers have never collapsed due to fires or any other cause other than controlled demolition.
  
• The Towers underwent explosive disintegrations that didn't look anything like the way such buildings would fall.
  
• The destruction of the Towers displayed several unique features of controlled demolition.
  
• There are relatively simple proofs that the buildings did not fall of their own weight.
  

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html

I for one have been fascinated by Tony's engineering arguments.

Jeffrey, we await your graphic of the rotation you describe which Tony stipulates did not occur.

When we see the North Tower collapse in context with the virtually identical collapse of the South Tower

and the most curious collapse of the seven building

all with the efficiency of controlled demolition

none of which has ever been observed

we have to ask

why?