Something that occurred to me recently, after reviewing the hits on the twin towers multiple times, is that these towers STOOD FIRM!! You would expect the area above the entrance hole to start to lean before falling to the ground considering the theory that the steel was being weakened by the fires.

Here's the thing that makes NO SENSE to me whatsoever . Why, when both towers had been struck and heavily damaged but, no apparent visual warning of a collapse was noticed, both towers suddenly and completely collapsed as if they had been put together with spit and baling wire.

If the towers were indeed that fragile, wouldn't the initial impact of the planes have sheared off the area above the entry point or, at the very least, caused a weakening that would show some visual evidence of an impending collapse? Remember, we're not talking about one tower here. Both withstood the initial hits and collapsed the exact same way!

Well constructed or not....

you decide.

RON PAUL for President!

The skeptics will claim that the "perimeter column bowing" that developed up until the time of collapse was evidence of the deterioration you describe.

Like you've noted, there was no dramatically visible outward change in either WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7 prior to the onset of collapse.

People (OCT supporters) who analyze the collapse strictly via formulae are content with what was observed.

People who observe how sudden, how rapid and how complete were all 3 collapses, question the validity of slick answers based on formulae fed data based on assumptions.

MM

I don't think the twin tower's collapses look anything but genuine. The question is somewhat could it have happened the way described? We know that the 1993 bombing nearly destroyed both towers; yet they stood firm. Maybe 11-9-01 was enough to cause a partial structural collapse, that dragged with it the rest of the floors; and hence beginning a total collapse. No other building has collapsed like this before, so it's really impossible to say with any degree of certainty that it didn't happen as the way officially described. With that said, it is still a possibility that the US was somewhat complicit with the attacks; but they certainly didn't cause them.

Sceptics of the official story simply don't know what to believe in relation as to how they were destroyed!

The two most obvious I can think of with WTC1 and 2 would be dropped floor slabs:


and perimeter column bowing:


WTC7 would of course be the east penthouse which was probably the first major outward indicator visible on video. There are reports of firemen claiming 'creaking', 'groaning' and 'popping' in relation also but these are hard to provide pics of :)

We know that you are wrong in your initial statement of fact.

Only WTC1 was effected by the 1993 bombing.
The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., opening a 30-meter-wide hole through four sublevels of concrete.

Nowhere was it reported that; "nearly destroyed both towers".

You have not presented a valid case that convincingly argues the impossibility of US complicity, other than your own incredulity.

I suggest you do more research before you feel so free to express your own unfounded opinions.

MM

'creaking', 'groaning' and 'popping' etc. are not sounds that are foreign to fires. Anyone who has created a good sized campfire has heard those sounds generated by burning logs.

We also have reports from firefighters and other quality witnesses, of sounds attributable to explosions.

MM

Another myth - 1993 WTC Bombing.

No, one car bomb did not almost destroy both Towers. The bomb didn't even go off under WTC 1 or 2. It went off under the Vista Hotel.

The 1993 Bombing did take out the Power Plant and the Chiller System for the complex, thereby necessitating extensive renovations to all of the buildings, gee how convenient.