>I really don't know. I think only a structural engineer could answer those questions. Probably due to the steel structure versus wood. They had interviews with structural engineers who explained it all - the temperature and force required to collapse/bend the steel. It took time for the burn to reach that temperature. According to the interviews I saw, the building would have to reach an unbelievably extreme temperature and then the steel would in essence, just fold up (melt) rather than bend due to the design. I saw live footage of both planes striking the building (and video later) so it seemed entirely plausible to me. There is just too much evidence that those two plains hit the towers and brought the building down to take anything else seriously (although everything should be considered).

Well, it is out of any doubt that two plains hit towers, everybody saw that.
But story about steel frame melting all the way down is kind of hard to believe. Temperature rising to steel-boiling point is also strange
explanation.
If planes were stuffed with COAL then yes, it wld take time for coal to
reach top temperature. But plane fuel burns faster then hey-stack. Majority of it burns out seconds from ignition in a k-boom style, rather then in a matter of hours.
[ Hope MythBustersShow takes this case into consideration for one show :) ]

But let that alone, how about that smaller building (WTC7) falling down all by itself ?!? (and according to that movie I mentioned - BEFORE towers ??)
And how about missing plane on Pentagon own security camera footage ?
You see just blast - but not a 'P' out of whole plane.
Where is the plane ??


>
>
>>>I would say so yes. The college is a part of the California state university system I think.
>>
>>How about article on 9/11 ?
>>
>>It is hard to believe how towers can colapse *straight* down, one after the other, after being hit by planes, but how/why WTC7 colapsed WITHOUT being hit - is way beyond my comprehension.
>>
>>I saw recently 'In Plane Site' movie about conspiracy theory
>>surrounding 9/11 events.
>>
>>The same question boggled me this time (I saw it again) , just like back then when I saw official video footage of Pentagon hit. How come you cannot
>>(could not back then) see actual PLANE on it ?!?
>>I am not talking about missing debris / bodies (discussed in movie), but actual moment of impact and explosion.
>>
>>No plane - not soever!
>>
>>Discussing this back in october 2001, wld hv been perhaps emotionally overcharged, but how about now? With heads cooled down, does anybody hv reasonable explanation for this ?
>>
>>Another strange thing.
>>Second tower was hit higher up to the left. It piersed trough building, flames comming out both on a side, and back of the builduing.
>>If impact/explosion had blown away internal wals making huge hole/damage LEFT to the vertical axis, wld it be normal for a tall object to colapse - sideway ? (like when timber is cut)
>>This straight down fall never looked ok to me.
>>
>>I am not insinuating anything, just naturally curious.