911 commission cited the fire the reasone for the collapse nothing else. being that the chief engineer who designed the towers said it should have withstood the impacts the impacts they would have had to prove the design was faulty in some way. they couldnt so it was fire listed as the cause.hey I have alot of quistions on all of this I hold nothing to be the exact truth in any of this. ThAT BEING SAID I CANNOT EXCEPT THE EXPLANATION FOR THE HOW AND WHY THE TOWERS FELL AS THEY DID.

Yes. Besides, may buildings survive earthquakes with millions of times the amount of energy of either the impacts or collapse. I pointed out in an earlier post that the Oklahoma City bombing had a THOUSAND FOLD the energy than either impact. Guess what, that building didnt fall down. Besides, its been stated (even by JOM article) that it could support lateral loads several times what the planes impact produced. The super redundant design of the towers could possibly handle several impacts actually. THe problem is what exactly was the cause here? Fire has never taken down a steel frame building in history. THis isnt to say its impossible by any means but it DOES set a precendent for steel framed buildings. So the impacts and resulting fire in and of themselves probably didnt cause the collapse but the combined events contributed to the joists giving way (a design inadequacy) and birth of the pancake theory. Seems plausible, Id think, to even to madisonman and Id have no problem myself accepting that if it wasnt for 7WT. THeres simply no easy way to convince me that 7 didnt fall disturbingly similar to how Dan Rather called it on that day.

Then you need to factor in how 911 was used to wage war in Iraq, and then factor in how long the Bush adm. opposed the creation of a 911 comission you cant help but ask quistions