[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Maccabee · Nov 10, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Or, to provide evidence that the official narrative is true and accurate.

Be happy to...in anoher thread that asks that question. Are you seriously attempting to shift the burden of proof on a thread that I created? The OP is asking for evidence for evidence for an inside job. If you can't provide such evidence, why should I believe it?

That is what you and the government are unable to do, going on 17 years now. The cover-up is why the heads of the Commission stated they were set up to fail.

Link?

That is why Coroner Miller was asked by the late-arriving FBI agents if he could be "a team player". That is why Senator Mark Dayton, one of the few good guys in Congress, after comparing the time lines offered by NORAD to the Commission, noted in public that NORAD lied.

Link?

The official narrative which you have converted to St. Paul, fails at every turn.

Who's St. Paul and how has the official narrative failed at every turn?

mike2810 · Nov 10, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Or, to provide evidence that the official narrative is true and accurate.

That is what you and the government are unable to do, going on 17 years now. The cover-up is why the heads of the Commission stated they were set up to fail. That is why Coroner Miller was asked by the late-arriving FBI agents if he could be "a team player". That is why Senator Mark Dayton, one of the few good guys in Congress, after comparing the time lines offered by NORAD to the Commission, noted in public that NORAD lied.

The official narrative which you have converted to St. Paul, fails at every turn.

As Jeff Prager has been unable to prove his theory, or Gage, Wood or any of the other narratives written.

Thoreau72 · Nov 11, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Be happy to...in anoher thread that asks that question. Are you seriously attempting to shift the burden of proof on a thread that I created? The OP is asking for evidence for evidence for an inside job. If you can't provide such evidence, why should I believe it?

Link?

Link?

Who's St. Paul and how has the official narrative failed at every turn?

As we've discussed before, and as you have consistently ignored, the point is that because the official story fails on every level, logic demands that it is therefore INVALID. It is a false story. The claim that 19 arabs with box cutters did all that is simply false.

Logic demands, therefore, that the persons responsible for the cover-up are the same ones involved in the planning and execution. Why else cover-up and incessantly lie if one were seeking the truth? To hide something, that's why.

That's what makes it an inside job. You and the government have failed utterly for 17 years in showing the story you tell to be true.

Quag · Nov 11, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
As we've discussed before, and as you have consistently ignored, the point is that because the official story fails on every level, logic demands that it is therefore INVALID. It is a false story. The claim that 19 arabs with box cutters did all that is simply false.

Logic demands, therefore, that the persons responsible for the cover-up are the same ones involved in the planning and execution. Why else cover-up and incessantly lie if one were seeking the truth? To hide something, that's why.

That's what makes it an inside job. You and the government have failed utterly for 17 years in showing the story you tell to be true.

What is the official story and where does it fail? If you are talking abut a bunch of terrorists hijacking and crashing planes and the resulting damage it is the ONLY explanation that actually fits all of the evidence

mike2810 · Nov 11, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

It amazes me that after all these years some still harp about the "official" report explanation to 9/11. At the same time they accept unfounded alternatives. Some even mix and match explanations and claim they have the true explanation of what happened on 9/11 claiming logic. Yet, in all of the alternatives regarding 9/11 none have "proof". The authors cannot prove explosives where planted. They cannot prove who in the "government" conducted 9/11. Yes, even the plane crash/damage/fire/collapse is a THEORY and not 100% proven. One just needs to look at the evidence to know which theory is the most likely.

So I will ask again.
- Is Gage (AE911T) correct when they state it was nanothermite/conventual explosives and no nukes took the buildings down. ( it is also noted AE911T seems to have changed what the nanothermite role was.
- Is Jeff Prager correct that is was mini neutron bombs with no thermite used
- Is Dr. Wood correct in that it was an energy beam weapon.
- Others have speculated it was a nuke in the basement.

- Where is Mark Basile's WTC7 dust results? He promised an independent lab would do the work. He received the funds over 5 years ago. Could it be the tests were done and the results failed to prove thermite?

Some live for a conspiracy. They see a conspiracy in almost every major event. The one common theme is the "govt" was behind it. :mrgreen:
(Yep, I must have been conditioned by the govt to write this):lamo

Maccabee · Nov 11, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
As we've discussed before, and as you have consistently ignored, the point is that because the official story fails on every level, logic demands that it is therefore INVALID. It is a false story. The claim that 19 arabs with box cutters did all that is simply false.

So what evidence you have that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked planes is false?

Logic demands, therefore, that the persons responsible for the cover-up are the same ones involved in the planning and execution. Why else cover-up and incessantly lie if one were seeking the truth? To hide something, that's why.

Again, you're drawing to a conclusion from an assumption. I have yet to see any evidence to question the "official" narrative.

That's what makes it an inside job. You and the government have failed utterly for 17 years in showing the story you tell to be true.

I was 5 when the towers fell and have no recollection of witnessing the event live. Until I started believing in 9/11 cospiracy theories, I really had no opinion one way or the other. It was only until recently, that I renounced the 9/11 cospiracy theories that I started making posts about it how 9/11 happened as reported. Even then, most of my posts are questions to the 9/11 cospiracy theory community, rather than me proclaiming that 9/11 was really hijacked by 19 Arabs with box cutters. So no, I haven't been peddling the official narrative for 17 years.

Thoreau72 · Nov 12, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
So what evidence you have that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked planes is false?

Again, you're drawing to a conclusion from an assumption. I have yet to see any evidence to question the "official" narrative.

I was 5 when the towers fell and have no recollection of witnessing the event live. Until I started believing in 9/11 cospiracy theories, I really had no opinion one way or the other. It was only until recently, that I renounced the 9/11 cospiracy theories that I started making posts about it how 9/11 happened as reported. Even then, most of my posts are questions to the 9/11 cospiracy theory community, rather than me proclaiming that 9/11 was really hijacked by 19 Arabs with box cutters. So no, I haven't been peddling the official narrative for 17 years.

Last time sir.

What evidence do YOU have that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked those airplanes? FYI neither you nor the government has been able to prove it. You cannot prove the claim, because it is a false claim.

All I know is that we were all deceived by that line of ****. I did believe the story for a few years, but then realized I had been fooled. By some strangely circuitous route, apparently you still are unaware you've been fooled. Whatever standard of proof you might apply, you still do not realize the deception.

That's a personal problem sir.

eace

I want to thank you sincerely for elaborating regarding your age in 2001. That explains a lot. Good luck in the future.

Maccabee · Nov 12, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Last time sir.

Or what? You're going to kick me out of my own thread?

What evidence do YOU have that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked those airplanes?

Start your own thread and ask that question. This thread is asking for evidence that 9/11 is an inside job per thread title.

FYI neither you nor the government has been able to prove it. You cannot prove the claim, because it is a false claim.

What evidence do you have that it's a false claim?

All I know is that we were all deceived by that line of ****. I did believe the story for a few years, but then realized I had been fooled. By some strangely circuitous route, apparently you still are unaware you've been fooled. Whatever standard of proof you might apply, you still do not realize the deception.

Then help me out. What solid evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job? Remember, I believed that it was an inside job before. I can believe in it again with substantial evidence. My mind can and have change.

That's a personal problem sir. eace

It doesnt help when you refuse to give evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

I want to thank you sincerely for elaborating regarding your age in 2001. That explains a lot. Good luck in the future.

Not sure how my age explains anything other than the fact that I was too young to remember it, but ok.

gerrycan · Dec 8, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Start with this annotated photo from Chris then try explaining to him the myriad of mistakes he's made within it.
View attachment 67242370

I don't hesitate to call out bad info from either side of the whole debate, but frankly I wouldn't know where to start with the annotated pic that he is using there. The "interior box column bases" look kinda more like perimeter column footings to me, for example.
On the whole concrete thing though, it turns out that there is a bit more concrete fireproofing of columns existant than I had previously realised, particularly below grade. Example below...

mike2810 · Dec 8, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Last time sir.

What evidence do YOU have that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked those airplanes? FYI neither you nor the government has been able to prove it. You cannot prove the claim, because it is a false claim.

All I know is that we were all deceived by that line of ****. I did believe the story for a few years, but then realized I had been fooled. By some strangely circuitous route, apparently you still are unaware you've been fooled. Whatever standard of proof you might apply, you still do not realize the deception.
…..

You do realize how ironic your post is. Neither you or your sources has been able to prove that mini neutron bombs, nanothermite were used. They are unable to say how it was done. Mark B. cannot even finish a funded dust analysis after over 5 years in which all he was going to do was send a sample to a lab for analysis. The world awaits the "published" paper out of Alaska on WTC7.

No alternative explanation has been proven. You have been deceived and do not even know it.

For the last time, please provide a source to the one concise explanation you accept. Tell us why the other controlled demolition explanations are wrong. For example Gage (AE911T) states no nukes were used. Prager states no thermite but nukes. Why is Dr. Wood wrong.

So many alternative explanations, so little time.

eace

Thoreau72 · Dec 9, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
You do realize how ironic your post is. Neither you or your sources has been able to prove that mini neutron bombs, nanothermite were used. They are unable to say how it was done. Mark B. cannot even finish a funded dust analysis after over 5 years in which all he was going to do was send a sample to a lab for analysis. The world awaits the "published" paper out of Alaska on WTC7.

No alternative explanation has been proven. You have been deceived and do not even know it.

For the last time, please provide a source to the one concise explanation you accept. Tell us why the other controlled demolition explanations are wrong. For example Gage (AE911T) states no nukes were used. Prager states no thermite but nukes. Why is Dr. Wood wrong.

So many alternative explanations, so little time. eace

The official narrative you embrace, that office fires and gravity were solely responsible for the damage observed, has never been proved. Indeed, it is contradicted by all the facts and evidence that can be seen and examined.

I say again Mike--that you are in denial of facts you don't like proves only that it is impossible to have a rational and adult conversation with you. That has been apparent for a few years now.

Quag · Dec 9, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
The official narrative you embrace, that office fires and gravity were solely responsible for the damage observed, has never been proved. Indeed, it is contradicted by all the facts and evidence that can be seen and examined.

I say again Mike--that you are in denial of facts you don't like proves only that it is impossible to have a rational and adult conversation with you. That has been apparent for a few years now.

Making up fairy tales is not evidence, ignoring evidence is not evidence
Pretending that non radioactive mini-nukes exploded without exploding or emitting radiation isn't only fiction it is non-sensical fantasy.

mike2810 · Dec 9, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
The official narrative you embrace, that office fires and gravity were solely responsible for the damage observed, has never been proved. Indeed, it is contradicted by all the facts and evidence that can be seen and examined.

I say again Mike--that you are in denial of facts you don't like proves only that it is impossible to have a rational and adult conversation with you. That has been apparent for a few years now.

I say again T, what you believe has never been proven. Do you have a reading problem? Years ago it was pointed out that the "official" explanation is a theory that is most probable after analyzing a various scenarios. Unlike Prager or Gage who insist they are correct. Yet the explanations they support is even more vague that the crash/fire/collapse explanation.

I said years ago that if with an alternative explanation that is proven by the evidence I would admit that the "official" explanation is wrong. Has not happened.

Then T, by all means I will ask one more time. Provide the sources with the correct explanation. You cannot and have never done that.

(Off topic. There are very few tragic events that you do not believe the govt. did them. From mass shootings, 9/11, single murders, etc. What is interesting is the sources you use, when you do mention them or provide a link). It seems you believe that the majority of on the ground local investigators are all crooked. Don't know what happened to you to make you so bitter.

hado117 · Dec 9, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?

WE'LL take care of it.

Thoreau72 · Dec 10, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
I say again T, what you believe has never been proven. Do you have a reading problem? Years ago it was pointed out that the "official" explanation is a theory that is most probable after analyzing a various scenarios. Unlike Prager or Gage who insist they are correct. Yet the explanations they support is even more vague that the crash/fire/collapse explanation.

I said years ago that if with an alternative explanation that is proven by the evidence I would admit that the "official" explanation is wrong. Has not happened.

Then T, by all means I will ask one more time. Provide the sources with the correct explanation. You cannot and have never done that.

(Off topic. There are very few tragic events that you do not believe the govt. did them. From mass shootings, 9/11, single murders, etc. What is interesting is the sources you use, when you do mention them or provide a link). It seems you believe that the majority of on the ground local investigators are all crooked. Don't know what happened to you to make you so bitter.

What you believe has never been proved either Michael, so that makes us even! :mrgreen:

mike2810 · Dec 10, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
What you believe has never been proved either Michael, so that makes us even! :mrgreen:

Once again you refuse to provide links. I admit what I accept is a theory. Unfortunately for you, the evidence is on my side.
Back to the OP. No one has provided proof that 9/11 was an inside job. That explanation fails on its lack of evidence.

SanderO · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
What you believe has never been proved either Michael, so that makes us even! :mrgreen:

What do you mean "proven"? What constitutes a "proof" of an observation?

I don't find NIST's sequence of events for either the twins or 7wtc compelling. They present a MODEL and they support their model with assorted observations and of course engineering, fire science and physics. There is a lot of wiggle room in their models because there is simply not a full data set of conditions over the course of the event.

It hardly makes sense to toss the entire thing out for some "detail" which may not be significant.

Having said the above... I attempted to come up with a sequence for the destruction of the 3 buildings which seems to make more sense to me. Of course I am handicapped by the incomplete data set. Not only that these were very complex 4 D problems almost impossible to solve with "equations".

I accept that 2 wide body planes hit the towers. Who piloted them is not a factor in how they collapsed. I believe... no I can't prove it... that the collapses of the twins were both cause by failures of the core structure. The cores suffered significant damage from the planes.. obviously not fatal. The structure DID have enough reserve strength to carry the floors above the plane strikes with some destroyed columns (axial load paths). But then the heat from unfought fires changed that. While heat does lower the strength of steel, it was not loss of strength which was the key factor as I see it. Heat also cause steel to expand. And it was the bracing beams between the core columns which began to expand from being heated. The heated beams were framed into columns.. not at the ends but at 3 levels about 3', 15' and 27' from the bottom of each column. The column to column splices were weak and basically kept then aligned on on top of the other during fabrication. The bracing beams basically held them in place laterally.

So heated beams are pushing laterally against the columns in 3 places. Above and below this "hot zone" the frame pretty much remained "in line" and as built. What likely happened is that the expansion was able to displace a column when the bracing on the opposite side had been destroyed or was not there. Essentially a very small displacement would destroy the column to column connection to perform as the bearing area was driven down by the displacement. Insufficient bearing will allow the column above to drop. This process of expansion, misalignment leading to axial support destruction led to the upper sections losing support and they dropped down delivering a mass of 32 stories in the case of 2wtc and more than 16 in the case of 1 wtc. 2 wtc tipped as it dropped because the core axial destruction was on the SE side and in 1wtc the axial destruction was down the center of the core. A tell in 1wtc was the drop of the massive antenna located above the swath of core destruction 16 floors below. The Antenna dropped first descending into the tower just as the rest of the core's columns up there were being displaced.

The above may not be what happened. It may be also. It is hard to know what the ACTUAL sequence of failures was. But it was not simultaneous. YES a tipping point was reached... the point when there was insufficient axial capacity of the core columns... not unlike how a tree is cut down by destroying the capacity where the trunk is chopped away.

NIST's explanation is that the floor trusses managed to displace the facade and destroy its axial alignment. pushed out on all 4 sides? Pulled in on all 4 sides? A combination? convoluted. I agree the destruction was heat caused by changing the dimension of horizontal members in addition to plane destroyed columns. That's it.

There is no credible sequence with place demo devices... Columns were no blown up... columns were pushed out of alignment.

gerrycan · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
The column to column splices were weak and basically kept then aligned on on top of the other during fabrication. The bracing beams basically held them in place laterally.

Here's an example of the type of column to column splice that you assert is weak. This is the splice for CC501 in the N tower at floor 95. The specific splice at that height is "101D". Can you point to what you think is "weak" about it please ?
https://imgur.com/a/1GKAytK

Thoreau72 · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
What do you mean "proven"? What constitutes a "proof" of an observation?

I don't find NIST's sequence of events for either the twins or 7wtc compelling. They present a MODEL and they support their model with assorted observations and of course engineering, fire science and physics. There is a lot of wiggle room in their models because there is simply not a full data set of conditions over the course of the event.

It hardly makes sense to toss the entire thing out for some "detail" which may not be significant.

Having said the above... I attempted to come up with a sequence for the destruction of the 3 buildings which seems to make more sense to me. Of course I am handicapped by the incomplete data set. Not only that these were very complex 4 D problems almost impossible to solve with "equations".

I accept that 2 wide body planes hit the towers. Who piloted them is not a factor in how they collapsed. I believe... no I can't prove it... that the collapses of the twins were both cause by failures of the core structure. The cores suffered significant damage from the planes.. obviously not fatal. The structure DID have enough reserve strength to carry the floors above the plane strikes with some destroyed columns (axial load paths). But then the heat from unfought fires changed that. While heat does lower the strength of steel, it was not loss of strength which was the key factor as I see it. Heat also cause steel to expand. And it was the bracing beams between the core columns which began to expand from being heated. The heated beams were framed into columns.. not at the ends but at 3 levels about 3', 15' and 27' from the bottom of each column. The column to column splices were weak and basically kept then aligned on on top of the other during fabrication. The bracing beams basically held them in place laterally.

So heated beams are pushing laterally against the columns in 3 places. Above and below this "hot zone" the frame pretty much remained "in line" and as built. What likely happened is that the expansion was able to displace a column when the bracing on the opposite side had been destroyed or was not there. Essentially a very small displacement would destroy the column to column connection to perform as the bearing area was driven down by the displacement. Insufficient bearing will allow the column above to drop. This process of expansion, misalignment leading to axial support destruction led to the upper sections losing support and they dropped down delivering a mass of 32 stories in the case of 2wtc and more than 16 in the case of 1 wtc. 2 wtc tipped as it dropped because the core axial destruction was on the SE side and in 1wtc the axial destruction was down the center of the core. A tell in 1wtc was the drop of the massive antenna located above the swath of core destruction 16 floors below. The Antenna dropped first descending into the tower just as the rest of the core's columns up there were being displaced.

The above may not be what happened. It may be also. It is hard to know what the ACTUAL sequence of failures was. But it was not simultaneous. YES a tipping point was reached... the point when there was insufficient axial capacity of the core columns... not unlike how a tree is cut down by destroying the capacity where the trunk is chopped away.

NIST's explanation is that the floor trusses managed to displace the facade and destroy its axial alignment. pushed out on all 4 sides? Pulled in on all 4 sides? A combination? convoluted. I agree the destruction was heat caused by changing the dimension of horizontal members in addition to plane destroyed columns. That's it.

There is no credible sequence with place demo devices... Columns were no blown up... columns were pushed out of alignment.

By the rules of logic SanderO, if any element of a theory is invalid, that renders the entire theory invalid.

By that standard, the OCT and your support of it with reservations fail.

mike2810 · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
By the rules of logic SanderO, if any element of a theory is invalid, that renders the entire theory invalid.

By that standard, the OCT and your support of it with reservations fail.

You realize what you posted applies to your believe that mini neutron bombs were used. Rule of logic, your theory is invalid.

SanderO · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
By the rules of logic SanderO, if any element of a theory is invalid, that renders the entire theory invalid.

By that standard, the OCT and your support of it with reservations fail.

I don't have a theory... I suggested and summarized an hypothesis. I don't know what you feel is false in what I wrote... Please let me know.

two planes hit the towers
all the fires of the day were un fought. All sprinkler systems failed almost immediately
engineering statements are true: steel expands when heated, beams were framed into 3', 15 & 27 feet from the column bottom, column splices were not designed to resist lateral forces... the antenna dropped first and so on.

Give it a shot... what detail that I wrote is false?

Quag · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
I don't have a theory... I suggested and summarized an hypothesis. I don't know what you feel is false in what I wrote... Please let me know.

two planes hit the towers
all the fires of the day were un fought. All sprinkler systems failed almost immediately
engineering statements are true: steel expands when heated, beams were framed into 3', 15 & 27 feet from the column bottom, column splices were not designed to resist lateral forces... the antenna dropped first and so on.

Give it a shot... what detail that I wrote is false?

The part where you didnt blame everything on the ebil US govt. After all that is the only part he cares about

SanderO · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gerrycan said:
Here's an example of the type of column to column splice that you assert is weak. This is the splice for CC501 in the N tower at floor 95. The specific splice at that height is "101D". Can you point to what you think is "weak" about it please ?
https://imgur.com/a/1GKAytK
View attachment 67246367

The cross section of the splice plates are substantially thinner than the columns... ergo weaker

Thoreau72 · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO said:
I don't have a theory... I suggested and summarized an hypothesis. I don't know what you feel is false in what I wrote... Please let me know.

two planes hit the towers
all the fires of the day were un fought. All sprinkler systems failed almost immediately
engineering statements are true: steel expands when heated, beams were framed into 3', 15 & 27 feet from the column bottom, column splices were not designed to resist lateral forces... the antenna dropped first and so on.

Give it a shot... what detail that I wrote is false?

Here's another true statement: jet fuel cannot melt steel, and it cannot weaken steel, and neither could the airplanes seriously impact the structures, according to the man who helped design it. Those are the facts you don't like to consider, as I recall.

SanderO · Dec 20, 2018

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Here's another true statement: jet fuel cannot melt steel, and it cannot weaken steel, and neither could the airplanes seriously impact the structures, according to the man who helped design it. Those are the facts you don't like to consider, as I recall.

No steel was melted... Who made this claim?
high temperatures weaken steel - FACT
The towers' structures had 47 core columns and several hundred perimeter columns. So a plane could not destroy even 1/4 of the columns. But it could destroy SOME of the columns and destroy some it did FACT. THAT destruction ALONE was not sufficient to cause the towers' top to collapse destroying the floors slabs below... leaving the columns un braced and vulnerable to Euler buckling. FACT

No problem consider intelligent comments. You are out of your league... essentially a parrot.