I hate to comment on this, but I can’t let the ‘logic’ comment slide.
If we are looking at this ‘logically’…
Given that 9/11 is the *only* example of large jet planes hitting a modern skyscraper, how is it possible to make the claim its ‘not possible’ for them to fall in the manner described as a result? Who could even suggest that without a counter-example?
There were other accelerants present beside the jet fuel that increased the temperature of the fire to the temperatures required to melt steel. Numerous eye-witnesses and video evidence have confirmed that the temperature of the fire heated the steel supports white-hot.
If this *was* a controlled detonation, where is the evidence of the same? Why don’t we hear the explosions, or see visual evidence of them? Why did the portion of the building above the point of impact remain intact? Most importantly, why is there not any chemical residue left over in the debris?
Lastly, the reason the buildings collapsed the way they did is that they were designed to. All modern skyscrapers are. If they fell over like a tree it would piss off the neighbors!
Really, this is not the appropriate forum for this crap and posting it casts some serious doubt on your previous analysis. If this does indeed seem logical to you maybe the perma-bulls are right about SD RE!
