Answers to latest counterpoints.

1) You can see parts of the building start to collapse on the roof on the left. then the whole thing just gave way.

When a demolitions team sets charges to bring down a building, they time the detonations to bring down the center columns first.

"Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward."

As I explained with my Leggo example, you have to demolish the support columns in order to create a free-fall effect, or else the resistance of the supports beneath each level will prevent the structure from collapsing. However, in response to the criticism that the a portion of the center of the building caved in moments before the entire building fell, I say this. As noted, the central support columns would have been exploded first. The cave if of a portion of the roof is a strong indication of exactly that. As for the rest of the building, it fell in a perfectly symmetrical fashion, as though there were no resistance beneath it whatsoever. That is VERY STRONG evidence that the support system failed on a simultaneous, universal level.

2) It has been asserted that I must prove that explosives were in the building because the proof that it did collapse the way it did is on video.

Well, I am not questioning the manner in which it imploded ... the video evidence is everywhere. What I question is the cause. There is no proof that fires brought that building down, and in fact, I would say that the argument that fires brought the building down is flimsy at best. The only point of discussion is in whether fire can cause complete failure of the entire superstructure of the entire building all at the same exact moment or not. To date, there is no example of that ever happening anywhere in the entire world, and in fact, there are multitudinous examples of where fire did NOT bring down a steel-framed building, and examples of what happens when a portion of a building gives out.

One cannot start with the premise that fires or demolitions brought the building down (which is the assertion of the point I am currently countering). All that can be done is examine the evidence that lays before us and use reason to deaw a conclusion. To draw a logical syllogism:

a) Uniform, symmetrical, synchronized collapse cannot occur where all or most structural supports are still attached.

b) Building fires burn at different temperatures throughout the building and will not heat structural supports at the same rate, at the same temperature, and for the same amount of time throughout the building. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the fires were even raging throughout any given floor in its entirety.

c) Given that the building came down in a completely uniorm, symmetrical, and synchronized fashion (All video evidence supports this, and no footage counters this), at a constant rate of freefall throughout the entire building, the only conclusion is that all of the structural supports failed at the exact same time.

d) Since the fire provides insufficient explanation (and even has insufficient evidence for even having provided structural weakening) for universal collapse (given the aforementioned reason), fire could not have caused the demolition of the building. The only other explanation is demolitions.

E) And just to throw this in here ... WTC 7 was built with enough redundancy to allow for the complete removal of entire floors without weakening the structural integrity of the rest of the building.

3) 2-110 story buildings came crashing down all around wtc7, which actually registered on the Rickter (sp?) scale. That's a mighty powerful factor that would majorly compromise any building around it.

All I have to say is that WTC 4, 5, and 6 were closer, took on WAY more structural damage, had raging infernos burning throughout the buildings for far longer, and did not collapse. Apparently, the collapses of the WTC Towers did nothing to facilitate structural damage to the buildings.