its not impossible. We saw the towers collapse, and fire has been proven to weaken steel. Once again, if you do not have a better explanation of what happened, shutup.

Once again, there is NOTHING that says a commercial jet cannot collapse a building. Fire damage also created an issue weakening the steel. Do you expect each single floor to hold the combined collapsed weight of all the floors above it?You lack common sense. Sitting on a chair is ABSOLUTELY not the same thing as a commerical jet hitting a building at 500 MPH. Once again, if you are smart, and know physics so well, what is your own better explanation of what happened?

3) learn just what is energy conservation, maximum heat capacity, melting point, thermal conduity&resistance- if u dont even understand these terms then u hav failed not only physics but also math & pracically everythin else in life. All physics revolves around this very concept- Energy spent is energy lost or mor accurately transferred. like money- if u spend $5, u dont hav $5 anymor thus u can NOT use the $5. likewise after the fuel was mostly burned out in the immediate explosion upon impact

of fire- Even if a building collapsed from fire, theres no way it can reach freefall velocities which wtc7 especially notably did. 1) a diffuse fire in an enclosed space has a LIMITED oxygen supply & inefficient fuel source thus temp r severlely limited though much heat may b generated. learn the diff between temp&heat 2) steel used in WTC were HIGH GRADE tested at 2000F. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for diffuse inefficient burning jet fuel to even ever reach those temps under such conditions as seen in wtc

do u even kno the physics laws? u hav absolutely no understanding of physics to b able say that- NO building ever falls just cuz its pushed. There must b som kind of internal imbalance or instability for somethin to ever fall. Building are built & developed to withstand any number of forces- if not then by definition its unstable & unsafe. hect its like saying a chair would shatter into a hundred pieces from just sitting on it or moving it a little. learn som physics& note the very wild nature

It doesn't matter what the building was designed to do, it clearly failed, and no it was not built to withstand the jet that hit it. There is NOTHING in the laws of physics that says a plane striking an object at 500 mph cannot collapse it. How are you saying that the building collapsed then?

do u even kno the laws of physics especially newton's laws & the notion of freefall? if u r unable to c the physics principle connection between hitting a wall, sitting on a chair & smashing into a building, im sorry u failed at physics b4 u even began. watch "WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall" and "WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial". WTC7 was the safe bunker of guiliani in NYC- do u kno what a safe bunker is? do u even kno wat was in WTC7?

o so the laws of physics dont apply to a jet hitting a building? same thing! newtons laws of motion apply to virtually all physical motion! Whether its sitting on a chair or building a house or punching a wall or havin somethin smash into a building, the laws of physics do apply! not to mention the fact that the WTC1&2 were both designed to withstand the impact of a massive 707 hence why it recieved so many engineering awards for its amazing redundant structure. can u understand that?

you are talking about your house, and a person sitting on a chair, vs a jet hitting a building at 500 MPH. Do you really think that super duper thermite, or some other miraculous silent invisible explosive is more feasible?

Al Quaeda = "Mine Camp is Underground", and the American Doller = $Al Khidre = "My Soul is in the Lay Line Grid" "I shall wrap a girdle (Curious - $), roundabout the Earth" = William Shakespeare.

steel has already been proven to weaken under fire. Please do not talk about physics or the properties of fire, you just asked why people evacuated a building that was on fire. A fire expert should know that people do not want to be in a building that is on fire. How many combined collapsed floors can a single floor hold? What are you saying happened to the building? If you do not have a logical explanation of what happened, shutup.

Oh I don't know , maybe they evacuated the building because.... it was ON FIRE? Do you normally stay in a building after the fire alarm has went off, especially after 3000 people had already died that day? That was one of the most ridiculous and clueless questions I have ever been asked.

4) & to support such a fire cause collapse theory, NO EXPLOSIVES may b used in any of its precedings. go give that a shothint: fire, even if its from debris, wont b able to effect steel much at all- its heat resistance & high conduity is one of the main features of steel

mor interestingly- study the properties of fire. if fire was the main cause of the collapse of a steel high-rise building, then test it under these conditions 1) it must spread in such a way as to cause a sequential collapse 2) it must collapse near free fall speed 3) a byproduct or effect of it must b molten steel

4) & to support such a fire cause collapse theory, NO EXPLOSIVES may b used in any of its precedings. go give that a shothint: fire, even if its from debris, wont b able to effect steel much at all- its heat resistance & high conduity is one of the main features of steel

quick test, sit in ur chair tell me if u fall- now put it on its tip & try sit on it- does it fall when u sit on it? or can u really even sit on it? hect can u even get it in such an unbalanced state & keep it there long enough to even sit on it? likely no- why? thats the meaning of balance to b able stabilize & balance itself & itself w/ other forces thus maintaining something called STRUCTURE- if it dont hav this, then it just crumbles

the dynamics of instability propose that instability is unstable & will tend to seek the most balanced state it can achieve(ie the collapse) if an internal stability cant b reached. that is meaning of stability- the ability to b self sufficient, self sustaining & even multi-force sustaining yet remain undestroyed

were structurally sound even w/ plane crashes- hect they were built so soundly as to specifically withstand such forces. If a building fell merely cuz of som 'outside force', well that building is not stable- it is unstable, unsafe & a hazard to itselfits like saying the chair would fall merely cuz u sat on it- no the chair is meant to b sat on & as long as it maintains its own structural integrity, the force will go right into the ground. that is meaning of balance & integrity- its integral!

what im sayin is- unless the building is set up to fall, ie unbalanced, the object will remain balanced. buildings r built to b able to redirect any number of forces. i could push on a house all day long, but if its built right, then the force will just transfer straight into the ground & the house will remain. But if the house is unstable- meaning the internal structure is lacking, then even a small amount of force or lack thereof could cause the whole thing to tumble.however the WTC

what are you talking about? No building falls because of outside force? How are you saying that the buildings fell, without any action at all?