Of course FEMA was a first try and more research is needed.
But what MM tries to explain is the nonsense of the report, with their probability they in fact say that you have to throw 10 times 6 simultaneously with 10 dices. BUT IT HAPPENED
Just because something is unlikely doesn't make it impossible.
Would you use the same argument against the theory of evolution?
Also, can you give a source of a FEMA calculation of a probability of 1/6^10? Or any probability at all?
The point remains, that over the course of the buildings collapse (ie the whole period between its initial damage from debris and the fires starting to its eventual total collapse) it became increasingly apparent the the building was going to collapse at some point. Thus it isn't at all strange that the firefighters were expecting this. Or, indeed, that they evacuated the are around the building well in advance. They wouldn't have necessarily expected the building to collapse in the way it did, but they were expecting a dangerous structural failure at some point.
The only alternative theory is that every person involved that day expect the building to remain standing but was told that it was going to e demolished. That they told the BBC this. And that nobody has raised a suspicion, via any media source in the world, since.
Edited to add:
Do you think that disasters and accidents generally have a high probability of occurring? An accident or a disaster is more usually a freak occurence that caught out the safety systems or the design - or which it simply isn't practical to compensate for. Was The Titanic a conspiracy? The shuttle disasters?
Accident investigators have to start from the unavoidable fact that the event in question most certainly happened. They can only attempt to deduce the cause of the event from the evidence that remains. If the evidence points to an unlikely series of events, then that it is, indeed, what happened.
