...FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.
Yes, they fell toward the ground as they collapsed, the sequence begun from the weakened top-most portions where the initial damage occurred. And as the astounding amount of material fell, quite a bit naturally accumulated beyond the footprints, damaging other buildings, not to mention leaving residue near and far.
2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.
Perhaps you're new to this thread (goodness knows, it's a long one), so you may have missed the numerous times the simple explanation has been given. In short, due to structural damage by way of their initial impact, secondary explosions forces, and subsequent fires,
two really, really, really heavy buildings couldn't support their own weight any longer.
3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits
And so...?
4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance
No. No. No.
If you, however, want to maintain it's so, you need to provide proof, not your (or anyone else's) impression of what it looked like.
5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.
"Molten metal?" What?!
There were subterranean fires beneath the WTC that continued to burn for days after the initial destruction. They were due to quite a few obvious reasons (do I need to list them?), and they were not put out for some time because there was kind of a big pile of debris in the way.
Where did this "molten metal" idea come from? And so what if there was some?
None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report yet the oddities of these listed above were characteristics of controlled demolition.
I wish I knew if you were being serious or not.
The most plausible explanation of why these buildings were brought down was that explosives were preplanted at stragetic points...
It's just sad to see someone suggest a conspiracy on the order of the largest undertaking of its kind in history is "the most plausible explanation."
So I have an idea: prove it.
You won't be able to, but I'd like to see you, or someone, try.
---
Edited to add: I see now by Gravy's post #1505 what is meant by molten metal. A perfectly easy to explain byproduct of the forces and circumstance. Hardly evidence of anything nefarious.
