Nope, you're incorrect. Here's the official report by the government, accept it if you want. You're allowed to prove them wrong, by all means. Oh, by the way, I'd love to see where you're getting your facts from. Links, please. I know it was supposed to stand over 160+ winds, but uh, the plane was by no means small, and it was traveling over 500 mph. I'd be happy if you showed me some links where more than one legitimate expert has said that the WTC could withstand a plane crash.

Official report:

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.



Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



Nice try though. And of course you will say 'that's a government website, you're so gullible' and continue on your life, probably masturbating to the thought of you being so totally open-minded. Because you know, Shear, something makes me think you've been looking at conspiracy theories without checking other facts and you think that you know what the fuck you're talking about. Whereas many conspiracist theories in the first place received much of their theory education off videos like Loose Change, which I will remind you is abundant with over four hundred mistakes.

But forget me, you're so much better because I'm brainwashed and believing the lies of The Man. Fight the power, I'm sure you were in no way influenced by anarchists and that your opinion is entirely your own. I mean, you did spend a lot of time looking at both sides of the argument, checking facts, and forming your own hypothesis, right? Right?

By the way, I don't support the government in any way. I just support the Controlled Demolition theory even less.

yo "hades" you really aren't accepting all that garbage as gospel and ultimate truth are you?

__________________

No, for the last time, I'm just saying it's a possible truth to the matter. I know the government is benefitting from all of this and possibly did start it, but I'm just against controlled demolition.

^^i actually sat and read each one and for real all of that information sounds dumb suspect to me

__________________

Either way, I'm sure in theory it is possible. It assists to dispel things such as controlled demolition by giving an alternate theory to some potentially incorrect statement. And if you think I'm contradicting myself now, I'm quite aware.

I don't believe in CD, you do (or so it seems). Fact of the matter is, it's a personal choice and both have their ups and downs and require a certain aspect of belief. You think the explanation sounds dumb, which probably does stem from the fact that your idea opposes mine (if it doesn't, ignore). From my side it seems to be a logical alternative. To me, the idea that multiple thousand pounds of explosives were planted in a building during a relatively small period of time, where there was ironically an evacuation and bomb-detecting dogs brought in due to a bomb threat. I see it as dumb to think people were able to conceal enough bombs to satisfy the needs of theorists in their speculation of the requirements to destroy the WTC.