The Towers burned for only 56 and 102 minutes before they were converted to pieces of metal, dust, and small fragments in 15 seconds each. One need not be an engineer to see the obvious.
There was nothing in the cores that would burn all those columns to such a degree. What space there was in there was filled with elevator shafts and stairwells walled in fire resistant chalkboard. Besides, thousands of people walked down those stairs to safety before the buildings were blown up. do you really imagine the heat was so intense it could melt steel would not engulf the stairs at their center??
No, your arguments are not convincing in the least so far..(but I will watch it all) You began by quoting Thomas Eager who wrote a small paper (like a People magazine article) stating that the buildings "fell through the path of least resistance." He doesnt explain how it is that we can all see they went straight down, through themselves, through the path of maximum resistance. But apparently a bloated academic can make any obviously incorrect assertion and not be ridiculed for it so that isn't necessary. Statements like his show clearly how the word of an 'expert' can be utterly incorrectand why 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy. Because an 'eager' or 'Sunder' can be found to say bloody anything.
That is why reason is the standard in a court of law and regular ol' lay people sit in that seat of ultimate power and choose between competing experts with the direct instruction that reason alone is to be your guide. So all you need is to be informed of the facts and determine for yourself what is most reasonable. There should be no sides in a quest for truth.
The north tower is telling because of how small the upper block was. Whatever heat there was would've been wicked away by the massive lattice of steel columns that made up the core.while it burned, and any softening of steel that did occur would be local and temporary.. Things burn up and the fires seek more fuel. The columns would cool and regain their strength. The reason, I think they were forced to blow up the towers so quickly is because the fires were clearly dying down. Here is a photo of WTC employee Edna Cintron standing in the center of the North Tower plane impact waving for help, happy in the confidence that she will now be rescued. Do you see a raging inferno behind her.. or the heat from all this fire below roasting her?
No
Have you looked how the building was made? Why would those huge corner box columns just break apart from the weight the 12 story upper block in the North Tower?
And in the ST there is video evidence showing copious amounts of molten metal pouring out of the building at the very point where it will break apart moments later. What is the logical conclusion?
And then the level of destruction again reveals explosives. A different kind obviously. that would so thoroughly destroy the buildings
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundzero.html
1100 innocent victims of which no genetic trace has been found is another huge red flag I would like you to explain. Tens of thousands of pieces, most so badly mangled they cant be tested for dna is what they told us in the papers. Does that make sense? We found Zarqawi's dna after dropping a 500lb bomb on his head. Should falling rubble remove all trace of more than a third of all the people that were in those buildings? That's what you're arguing.
Gravity (especially in such a massive over-designed structure) cannot account for the energy required to accomplish all these tasks. Clearly. And you dont need anything but common sense to certain of it. Even if the whole thing was allowed to fall completely on someone.. with no supports at all..there would be some trace of genetic material remaining that would identify who the person was/ It is difficult to believe that you find your own arguments convincing in the face of so much damning evidence that reveals the use of explosives.
I dont get how anyone can look carefully at the facts (videos, photos, testimony, the behavior of authorities, lack of any real evidence against those we blamed, the rushing off two 2 wars/ FEMA, RJ Lee, NGS, 911 Comm. Active Thermitic Material Found paper. NIST, and the valid critiques brought up by independent investigators and whistle-blowers like Kevin Ryan) of 9-11 and not be sure they were blown up/ I get being fooled by the media, personal incredulity, and cognitive dissonance.. I get all of that and went through it myself. But once you look. How do you dismiss all these things??
The 99 day fires alone are more damning than anything you've put forth so far. Underground no less. Fires that could not be put out despite the steady stream of water. So much water that 'we are creating a lake in lower Manhattan.' FDNY spokesman told the NY Times. With 2800f recorded by Bechtel a week later/
These are facts. And this, despite a solid week of rain and constant water from FDNY (when that reading was taken) but the fire would rage for 99 days. A worker is quoted on video over a month later as saying, "it's still roaring, red hot like an oven in there". This..like the 1100 unaccounted for human beings,,would not have been possible in a truly natural event.
