The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15:213:1219]

[KokomoJojo]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

energy beam .

what else you got?

why have you ruled out energy beam?

 

[Mark F]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Looking for the truth has nothing to do with being critical of alternative explanations. I don't understand how you connect the two.

Ummm, yeah it does. You frequently admonish some of us for "never questioning the official story" (see below) yet conversely, I have never seen you cry foul when any of your compatriots post ridiculous and/or blatantly false or implausible claims.

Pot, meet kettle.

Finding the truth means exploring all plausible options and ruling out those that do not fit.

Of course, there is no such thing as the collapse of a steel frame high rise by fire alone that I've ever heard of, so it goes without saying that any such theory is dubious.

Why does it have to be a high-rise building? Does fire know how tall a building is? How is it never happened before therefore it can not happen a well-reasoned argument?

Baloney, I already posted several times that there is no other explanation that makes sense to me.

Fixed that for you.

I haven't failed to see the truth. I'm just looking for the truth about 9/11. The truth is that we've been lied to. And it seems you believe the lies are fact.

Not from what I've seen. Your lack of objectivity is glaringly obvious.

I've asked others the same question because they all exhibit the same characteristics. They never question anything about the official narrative and it seems neither do you. So I'll ask you if you don't mind answering. Is there anything you question about the official narrative (other than what may be considered trivial)? I'm just curious.

Personally I don't "question the official narrative" on this board because this would be a terrible place to do it - none of the resident Truthers here even remotely competent to answer. Besides, I've been at this a while so mot too many issues left open. What I do know is the big-picture narrative has never been falsified. Arguments over disputed details, while sometimes amusing, don't change that.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Good post. No insult intened towards you HD. You are in a group that disagrees with the official report. I realize you claim to be a free thinker.
With that said. You also have a unpleasant habit of including me in those that you call delusional. It seems because I disagree with you. You have not walked in my shoes. If you did you would have the same work experience, education, life experiences. Like I have not walked in yours.

We all are independent thinkers. I can tell that you and me accept different sources as being valid. Yet, I also read, visit alternative explanation sites.

I really know for certain that the fires could take the buildings down (and that is an opinion based on facts) We just agree to disagree.

If and when an alternative explanation comes out that is backed with evidence and not "what if" or speculation , I would then admit the fire induced collapse was wrong. Till then it is the most likely explanation. Unlike some who post here that have ruled out fire as the mechanism and cannot layout the alternative explanation in detail.

That's all well and good Mike.

Might you offer an example or two of fires in modern steel buildings that have brought them down? That is, what facts do you offer to support your a) certainty, and b) opinion supported by facts?

 

[Bob0627]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Ummm, yeah it does. You frequently admonish some of us for "never questioning the official story" (see below) yet conversely, I have never seen you cry foul when any of your compatriots post ridiculous and/or blatantly false or implausible claims.

Apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between the official story and the many theories others propose. I already explained that so even a child can understand. I have never seen you cry foul when any of your fellow defenders of the 9/11 narrative post ridiculous and/or blatantly false or implausible claims.

Pot, meet kettle.

Finding the truth means exploring all plausible options and ruling out those that do not fit.

Finding the truth begins with a valid unbiased investigation that uses all the available evidence and eyewitness testimony and uses standard accepted investigative techniques, not chasing every rainbow.

Why does it have to be a high-rise building?

Because you want to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. If you set a straw hut on fire, at one point it might collapse symmetrically at free fall into its own path. Maybe not, but that's possible, whereas with a high rise steel frame building it's not possible.

Fixed that for you.

Yeah you do doctor a lot of posts to try to support your arguments.

Not from what I've seen.

Says the blind man. If you question nothing then you accept everything as fact or you just don't care.

Personally I don't "question the official narrative" on this board because this would be a terrible place to do it - none of the resident Truthers here even remotely competent to answer.

Or anywhere, why don't you just admit it instead of making up silly excuses and deflecting the point to "truthers". You are so full of it, you have no problem responding to "truthers" on just about every other issue even though in your opinion none of them are "even remotely competent to answer".

 

[Mark F]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Apples and oranges. There is a world of difference between the official story and the many theories others propose. I already explained that so even a child can understand. I have never seen you cry foul when any of your fellow defenders of the 9/11 narrative post ridiculous and/or blatantly false or implausible claims.

Pot, meet kettle.



Finding the truth begins with a valid unbiased investigation that uses all the available evidence and eyewitness testimony and uses standard accepted investigative techniques, not chasing every rainbow.



Because you want to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. If you set a straw hut on fire, at one point it might collapse symmetrically at free fall into its own path. Maybe not, but that's possible, whereas with a high rise steel frame building it's not possible.



Yeah you do doctor a lot of posts to try to support your arguments.



Says the blind man. If you question nothing then you accept everything as fact or you just don't care.



Or anywhere, why don't you just admit it instead of making up silly excuses and deflecting the point to "truthers". You are so full of it, you have no problem responding to "truthers" on just about every other issue even though in your opinion none of them are "even remotely competent to answer".

Wow. Talk about not getting it on a fundamental level!

 

[mike2810]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

That's all well and good Mike.

Might you offer an example or two of fires in modern steel buildings that have brought them down? That is, what facts do you offer to support your a) certainty, and b) opinion supported by facts?

show me where exactly the same type structure of a steel building was first hit by a passenger jet and then burned.

You do want to compare apples to apples.

Show me a steel building that was prepared for CD, set on fire and allowed to burn for hours, then the CD charges were set off. Can't can you?

Your line of questions make no sense.

I am not going to list again all of the papers that are out there regarding the WTC collapses. It has been done.

So your statement is all well in good.

Also HD, show me a steel high rise building that has CD was done by nukes. Can't can you.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

show me where exactly the same type structure of a steel building was first hit by a passenger jet and then burned.

You do want to compare apples to apples.

Show me a steel building that was prepared for CD, set on fire and allowed to burn for hours, then the CD charges were set off. Can't can you?

Your line of questions make no sense.

I am not going to list again all of the papers that are out there regarding the WTC collapses. It has been done.

So your statement is all well in good.

Also HD, show me a steel high rise building that has CD was done by nukes. Can't can you.

fire does not get hot enough to set off sealed thermate cutters mike.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Wow. Talk about not getting it on a fundamental level!

You're absolutely right, it's extremely difficult to understand your kind of mentality. You make very little or no sense most of the time. What kind of genuine person defends just about every detail of of the official 9/11 narrative and questions nothing? I don't believe such a person exists, therefore, IMO you're not genuine. The same is true with all the other defenders of the 9/11 narrative who question nothing about it. And in this case, it's worse than that. The defenders of the OCT in this forum do it almost daily, several posts per day. Why is that? If you were so confident that the 9/11 narrative in all its gory details is 100% on the level (or thereabouts), why the fanatical defense?

 

[Mark F]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

You're absolutely right, it's extremely difficult to understand your kind of mentality. You make very little or no sense most of the time. What kind of genuine person defends just about every detail of of the official 9/11 narrative and questions nothing? I don't believe such a person exists, therefore, IMO you're not genuine. The same is true with all the other defenders of the 9/11 narrative who question nothing about it. And in this case, it's worse than that. The defenders of the OCT in this forum do it almost daily, several posts per day. Why is that? If you were so confident that the 9/11 narrative in all its gory details is 100% on the level (or thereabouts), why the fanatical defense?

:lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[Bob0627]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Now there's an intelligent response about the level of a 3rd grade school child. It confirms exactly what I said:

"You make very little or no sense most of the time."

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

You're absolutely right, it's extremely difficult to understand your kind of mentality. You make very little or no sense most of the time. What kind of genuine person defends just about every detail of of the official 9/11 narrative and questions nothing? I don't believe such a person exists, therefore, IMO you're not genuine. The same is true with all the other defenders of the 9/11 narrative who question nothing about it. And in this case, it's worse than that. The defenders of the OCT in this forum do it almost daily, several posts per day. Why is that? If you were so confident that the 9/11 narrative in all its gory details is 100% on the level (or thereabouts), why the fanatical defense?

Bob,

You continue to demand a "forensic criminal investigation". And yet reject everything found during a "forensic criminal investigation".

You continue to claim no one who accepts the "official theory" (even though there is no "official" theory, merely reality) questions any facet of the "official theory" when it has been shown to be untrue.

You reject the one and only explanation that fits all of the evidence.

You reject the one and only explanation (fire or fire+structural damage) that is endorsed by the vast majority of engineering, demolition and fire prevention experts

Those of us who defend "OCT" (AKA reality) do so because we realize it is the one and only intelligent explanation to come down the pike in 13 years.

If you have an ALTERNATE THEORY please post it.

Since this is the ALTERNATE 9/11 theory thread.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

A consensus on particular themes, yes, like that al Qaeda hijacked the planes, kamikazed them into buildings, buildings subsequently collapsed due to damage & fire, thousands of people died.

Where a consensus is non-existent is in the finer smaller details. And a lot of that is due to a lack of transparency & a rather fangless media I.e. they don't hold the government to account with the vigorousness that they should due to the fear of losing their already limited access because let's face it, a media organization without government access is treated like a tabloid.

How many of the finer details make any dent in the narrative as a whole?

And how many of the finer details are "investigative reporters" merely regurgitating whatever they are told (a pet peeve of mine).

Example: Reporter asks Politician X what the projected tax revenue for 2015 is. Politician answers "$23 Gaziillion". Reporter prints this without even considering what a Gazillion is or even if it is feasible in with the tax base. Reporter never checks, merely regurgitates. Reporter Y asks the same question a month later and gets the answer $41 Bagillion". Reporter Y neither questions the numbers nor asks politician why the number does not match earlier projections.

Admittedly this is more of a regional/state/local problem.

 

[Jango]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

How many of the finer details make any dent in the narrative as a whole?

And how many of the finer details are "investigative reporters" merely regurgitating whatever they are told (a pet peeve of mine).

Example: Reporter asks Politician X what the projected tax revenue for 2015 is. Politician answers "$23 Gaziillion". Reporter prints this without even considering what a Gazillion is or even if it is feasible in with the tax base. Reporter never checks, merely regurgitates. Reporter Y asks the same question a month later and gets the answer $41 Bagillion". Reporter Y neither questions the numbers nor asks politician why the number does not match earlier projections.

Admittedly this is more of a regional/state/local problem.

1) Depends at how you view 9/11. If you view 9/11 as what the government initially said it was I.e. pretty much an out of the blue surprise attack, then perhaps the lesser-known finer details will not be of consequence. But if you view 9/11 as it really was I.e. not a surprise attack, then the lesser-known finer details can be quite impactful on the overall narrative outside the larger immovable parts I.e. planes, hijackings, al Qaeda, suicide crashes, buildings collapse & thousands of people die.

2) There's a reason for that. Take T.V. networks for instance. There is the Big Six that own the media we see on T.V. And the CEO of the parent company, like a Comcast or Viacom, have a snug working relationship with the government that can be called crony capitalism. Hell, a (former?) lobbyist for the cable & wireless companies was appointed by President Obama & confirmed by the Senate to be the F.C.C. Commissioner. And what is that man doing today? Catering to the demands of major networks that want to see net neutrality become a thing of the past. (Isn't it awesome when Presidential appointees are a plain as day conflict of interest, like a (former?) Monsanto employee becoming the head of the F.D.A.?)
Media cross-ownership in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

1) Depends at how you view 9/11. If you view 9/11 as what the government initially said it was I.e. pretty much an out of the blue surprise attack, then perhaps the lesser-known finer details will not be of consequence. But if you view 9/11 as it really was I.e. not a surprise attack, then the lesser-known finer details can be quite impactful on the overall narrative outside the larger immovable parts I.e. planes, hijackings, al Qaeda, suicide crashes, buildings collapse & thousands of people die.

2) There's a reason for that. Take T.V. networks for instance. There is the Big Six that own the media we see on T.V. And the CEO of the parent company, like a Comcast or Viacom, have a snug working relationship with the government that can be called crony capitalism. Hell, a (former?) lobbyist for the cable & wireless companies was appointed by President Obama & confirmed by the Senate to be the F.C.C. Commissioner. And what is that man doing today? Catering to the demands of major networks that want to see net neutrality become a thing of the past. (Isn't it awesome when Presidential appointees are a plain as day conflict of interest, like a (former?) Monsanto employee becoming the head of the F.D.A.?)
Media cross-ownership in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yet the "big media" brought us Watergate, Whitewatergate, the blue dress, Wikileaks, J. Edgar in a dress, Bimbo Eruptions, No WMDs in Iraq, the VA fiasco, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Iran-Contra, and hundreds more.... It is hard to open a paper or check a website without one fiasco or another playing itself out on the public stage.

As in the past what a given media giant may wish to highlight or underplay has much to do with their given "slant". You should be familiar with Yellow Journalism in the late 1800s - 1900s that helped escalate the Spanish-American war. The isolationist movement had it's papers during the late 1930s as did the hawks.

The problem is looking at the media as a monolith. They are not. And they are prone to the same biases as regular folks. The only difference is they SHOULD have fact checkers.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

It is interesting how so many cry and moan the "official theory" (AKA reality) is so flawed.

Yet these same folks balk at providing an alternative.

Why? Because they spend all their time trying to create a case the "official theory" is false rather than taking the time and effort to come up with a theory of their own.

I am asking them to quit playing 'Anomaly Whack-A-Mole' and actually think about their core convictions....

Example: Some have claimed the ONLY way the WTCs went down was due to "CD"... Well? Lay out the who, what, why, where.... Be sure to include how the explosives survived the impact and fires in the towers. How did they survive hours of fire in WTC7. Why is there no explosions consistent with a CD? (Note the italicized part). Why no seismic record of the explosions consistent with a CD? How does "molten steel/molten metal" fit in? Why demolish a building (WTC7) that few knew about? How about WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6.... Why no explosives there?

 

[Jango]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

And yet the "big media" brought us Watergate, Whitewatergate, the blue dress, Wikileaks, J. Edgar in a dress, Bimbo Eruptions, No WMDs in Iraq, the VA fiasco, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Iran-Contra, and hundreds more.... It is hard to open a paper or check a website without one fiasco or another playing itself out on the public stage.

As in the past what a given media giant may wish to highlight or underplay has much to do with their given "slant". You should be familiar with Yellow Journalism in the late 1800s - 1900s that helped escalate the Spanish-American war. The isolationist movement had it's papers during the late 1930s as did the hawks.

The problem is looking at the media as a monolith. They are not. And they are prone to the same biases as regular folks. The only difference is they SHOULD have fact checkers.

1) Of course. After all, they are a business and have their own bottom line. Take the Snowden revelations for example. Many were published but some, at the request of unnamed government officials, were not. Look at James Risen of the New York Times. He's being dragged through the mud for not giving up his sources. Or look at the Bilderberg meeting this year: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC & NBC had 0 coverage. So media co-option by the government is visible if one looks, but the extent, the true extent, is unknown.

2) Yellow journalism helped get us into World War 1.

3) While the media doesn't have unfettered access to government held information, they do, however, have unfettered access to the Internet, social media & e-mail. Personal story: when I watched DNI James Clapper say that there are sleeper cells in the U.S., I e-mailed the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LaTimes & the WSJ with the video (which is curiously missing from Youtube now). None of them ran the story. It was from this hearing: Intel Chiefs Testify at Senate FISA Oversight Hearing | C-SPAN

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

1) Of course. After all, they are a business and have their own bottom line. Take the Snowden revelations for example. Many were published but some, at the request of unnamed government officials, were not. Look at James Risen of the New York Times. He's being dragged through the mud for not giving up his sources. Or look at the Bilderberg meeting this year: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC & NBC had 0 coverage. So media co-option by the government is visible if one looks, but the extent, the true extent, is unknown.

2) Yellow journalism helped get us into World War 1.

3) While the media doesn't have unfettered access to government held information, they do, however, have unfettered access to the Internet, social media & e-mail. Personal story: when I watched DNI James Clapper say that there are sleeper cells in the U.S., I e-mailed the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the LaTimes & the WSJ with the video (which is curiously missing from Youtube now). None of them ran the story. It was from this hearing: Intel Chiefs Testify at Senate FISA Oversight Hearing | C-SPAN

A C-SPAN URL?

Me smiling.

And the Bilderberg meeting this year? Was it different than other years? News is, well, new. The same folks having the same "secret" meeting soon becomes non-news.

So, back to the OP after a rather pleasant derail.

 

[mike2810]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

fire does not get hot enough to set off sealed thermate cutters mike.

so? If what you posted is true, what of it?

still waiting for someone to show where the exact same steel high rise buildings were damaged the same way, sustained fire for the same time, intensity, and coverage, before the CD charges were set off. Still waiting for those who support thermite to explain Harriets remark that it would have taken thousands of metric tons of the stuff he found to produce the results on 9/11.

What are the odds that the CD charges were not displaced on WTC1 and 2 that the buildings collapse in a similar fashion?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

so? If what you posted is true, what of it?

still waiting for someone to show where the exact same steel high rise buildings were damaged the same way, sustained fire for the same time, intensity, and coverage, before the CD charges were set off. Still waiting for those who support thermite to explain Harriets remark that it would have taken thousands of metric tons of the stuff he found to produce the results on 9/11.

What are the odds that the CD charges were not displaced on WTC1 and 2 that the buildings collapse in a similar fashion?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Often "controlled demolitions" use DET CORD to connect the charges. Those that use electric ignitors/initiators normally wire them. DET CORD and WIRING will stand up just fine under an airliner strike or hours of fire, eh?

And, no, radio controlled -units don't fly given the interference in the buildings.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Bob? You there?

Alternative theory.

Got one?

One that matches the EVIDENCE?

No?



Why am I not surprised.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

show me where exactly the same type structure of a steel building was first hit by a passenger jet and then burned.

You do want to compare apples to apples.

Show me a steel building that was prepared for CD, set on fire and allowed to burn for hours, then the CD charges were set off. Can't can you?

Your line of questions make no sense.

I am not going to list again all of the papers that are out there regarding the WTC collapses. It has been done.

So your statement is all well in good.

Also HD, show me a steel high rise building that has CD was done by nukes. Can't can you.

Instead of answering my simple question to you regarding your previous statement, you ask more questions. Nothing new Mike, I've seen it before, and I understand the rationale. My bet is you wish you could take your previous statement back, but of course you cannot.

You claimed to know for certain that fires took the buildings down.

I ask for an example of that having happened, and you're speechless, unable to provide a single example of fire having taken down EVEN ONE modern building. And with good cause are you unable to provide an example. It's never happened before or since.

Yet you offer that it is a "fact". Egads Mike. :shock:

Honesty is all I'm looking for. I can easily entertain other points of view, but I cannot abide dishonest claims.

 

[Mark F]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Instead of answering my simple question to you regarding your previous statement, you ask more questions. Nothing new Mike, I've seen it before, and I understand the rationale. My bet is you wish you could take your previous statement back, but of course you cannot.

You claimed to know for certain that fires took the buildings down.

I ask for an example of that having happened, and you're speechless, unable to provide a single example of fire having taken down EVEN ONE modern building. And with good cause are you unable to provide an example. It's never happened before or since.

Yet you offer that it is a "fact". Egads Mike. :shock:

Honesty is all I'm looking for. I can easily entertain other points of view, but I cannot abide dishonest claims.

I don't understand why there needs to be a prior example of a high-rise building fire which resulted in total collapse in order for claims that the WTC towers succumbed to fire to be valid. Do we need proof of a prior landing on the Moon to confirm that Apollo 11 made it there? How bout' we turn the tables and ask you to demonstrate a high-rise building that has ever fallen due to the use of blastless, radiationless nukes in order to show that could have happened on 9/11?

I for one am quite pleased that out-of-control fires are an exceedingly rare occurrence in high-rise steel-frame buildings. But fire doesn't care how tall a building is and we know for a fact that steel is vulnerable to heat. No shortage of steel structures that have fallen to fire to bear that out.

The first time in history meme is both stupid and meaningless - definitely one of the lesser tools in the Truther box and you of all people should know better.

 

[mike2810]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Instead of answering my simple question to you regarding your previous statement, you ask more questions. Nothing new Mike, I've seen it before, and I understand the rationale. My bet is you wish you could take your previous statement back, but of course you cannot.

You claimed to know for certain that fires took the buildings down.

I ask for an example of that having happened, and you're speechless, unable to provide a single example of fire having taken down EVEN ONE modern building. And with good cause are you unable to provide an example. It's never happened before or since.

Yet you offer that it is a "fact". Egads Mike. :shock:

Honesty is all I'm looking for. I can easily entertain other points of view, but I cannot abide dishonest claims.

No HD, I am just tired of your games.

Look back at all of our exchanges. How many times have you not answered with a direct answer.

Honesty. you don't seem to know what that is HD. Try it sometime. I recall long time ago your excuse for not posting a source was you didn't know how to do it.

Who is being dishonest. You claim to be a free thinker, yet your posts follow pretty much what main stream CT folks post as the topic of the day.

Back to your your point. So if an event has never happened before, therefore it cannot happen today. Seems to be your stance. So no I don't know of any building built exactly like the WTC 1,2 or 7 that was taken completly down by fires and when two of the buildings were hit by aircraft and the third damaged by debris from the others.

Ok HD, tell me when in the past has a building been taken down as a CD with a neutron bomb, and thermite. You can't. Therefore it could not have happened:mrgreen:

In your world, its seems all high rise steel buildings are the same. Got it.:mrgreen:

rant over.

If you have it all figured out. What are you going to do with the information?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Mike

Why don't you back up your previous claim, vague though it was? First you were certain that fires could bring down the towers, then you said it was an opinion backed up by facts.

I'm simply wondering what facts you use to feel so certain about this? What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that you made an absurd statement, and I called your bluff.

We're all adults here Mike. If it is a well known fact that fires can bring down steel highrises buildings, show an example.

Peace, dude.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: The ALTERNATE 9/11 theory.[W:15]

Instead of answering my simple question to you regarding your previous statement, you ask more questions. Nothing new Mike, I've seen it before, and I understand the rationale. My bet is you wish you could take your previous statement back, but of course you cannot.

You claimed to know for certain that fires took the buildings down.

I ask for an example of that having happened, and you're speechless, unable to provide a single example of fire having taken down EVEN ONE modern building. And with good cause are you unable to provide an example. It's never happened before or since.

Yet you offer that it is a "fact". Egads Mike. :shock:

Honesty is all I'm looking for. I can easily entertain other points of view, but I cannot abide dishonest claims.

CLUE: Steel framed buildings have ALWAYS been at risk due to fire. Always. As long as fire degrades steel this is a fact.

CLUE: There is precedent to a steel framed building suffering partial or full collapse. This too is fact.

The added word "modern" suggests MODERN firefighting and MODERN active and passive fire protection. The sprinklers were INOPERATIVE in both the towers and in WTC7. The fire resistant coatings WERE NOT sufficient for the wide ranging intense fires.

So, given there WERE fires, and given steel DEGRADES IN A FIRE, and given there no EXPLOSIONS CONSISTENT WITH EXPLOSIVES BEING USED... What is the logical CONCLUSION?