About keeping an open mind, I've probably read 3 times more conspiracy material than traditional theory materials. Its very useful knowing both sides of the argument in debating this issue.
I think what a lot of people forget is that an event like this has never happened in history and then they look at various things and think they are unusual but there is no class of events to compare 911 to. Its unique in human history. Some people are surprised that the buildings came straight down but you have to remember that gravity is the overwhelming force here and those compromised supports at the point of impact had 20-30 floors of weight pushing down against them.
The best people to look at a technical issue like thia are the top structural engineers in the world with PhDs from the top universities in the world at the most prestigious engineering journals in the world using the peer reviewed journal process. These are thousands of the top structural engineers from countries across the world whose work is critiqued first by a committee of elite engineers and then by the members that pay fees to these journals. Why would all these structural engineers whose job it is to improve building safety lie about this?
As for the molten metal, look at Blanchard's assertion 5. He was there along with his company Protec.
As for WTC 7, the building had a 20 story gash on one of its corners, had fires going for 7 hours, had multiple fuel tanks for generators inside the stucture that likely united and its design featured a change in plans partway through its construction that may have made it more vulnerable to collapse. Look at Blanchard assertion 7 from my earlier link and also the link below.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/20 ... -Nov07.pdfOne also should think about what kind of incriminating evidence was in WTC 7 that was so important that they felt they needed to bring down the structure by controlled demolition but not important enough as to leave the building up for 7 hours. Anybody have a suggestion of what could have been in there to fit that criteria?
And even aside from the structural engineering journals all you have to do to prove a controlled demolition is impossible is engage in pure logic and to ask for someone to give a scenario of how it could possibly work. Its been almost 10 years and there are millions of conspiracy theorists. Yet there is no explanation. Its because it is scientifically impossible.
So can someone provide a possible scenario where it could work?
1. I hope everyone here agrees that the point of collapse was at the point of the plane impact and that is therefore the place where the primary charges would have to be placed whatever the type of explosive used. Even the all powerful US government (which is often pretty incompetent) cannot change the laws of physics, those charges had to be placed at the point of collapse.
2. So can anyone tell me how someone could setup demolition charges at the point of impact without being seen and how could all those wires and charges remain intact after a plane impact that severed many support columns and caused fires 800 to 1600 degrees Fahrenheit?
If someone cannot provide a possible scenario for point 2, then it nullifies all these other points on a CD (Controlled Demolition). You can't have a CD unless you are able to set up charges and keep them at the point of collapse at the time of the collapse.
I honestly wish I had not jumped into this debate, its like doing homework on a board I would just like to have fun on. And this topic in particular is very technically based and requires me to go into sources that are rigorous reads.