You can say the buildings failed due to their design, that the temperatures were impossibly hot and that the steel failed well before it should have due to human error.
Any scientist will tell you in order to get a broader picture you must consider
all of the available data. Sure there's a remote possibility that what you're suggesting happened did in fact happen (although obviously there was no pancake collapse), however when you consider the bigger picture NONE of the data excludes the possibilty of explosives while much of it makes a collapse not aided by explosives seem very unlikely.
Consider this:
The collapse of WTC1 registered a 2.3 on the richter scale, the collapse of WTC2 registered a 2.1. Both buildings were of nearly identicle size, mass and construction and both would have collapsed under very similar conditions.
According to the richter scale, a 2.3 magnitude event has double the explosive power of a 2.1 magnitude event.
Magnitude: Log.Scale Seismic Energy
3.0 - 100,000 - 29 tons of TNT
2.0 - 10,000 - 1 ton of TNT
1.0 - 1,000 - 30 LBS of TNT
Conservation of energy law states that Potential Energy = Kinetic Engery of Motion. PE = KE. Since both towers were nearly identicle the standing kinetic energy and the force of WTC1 collapse would = 2.7 tons of TNT, the force of WTC2 collapse would = 1.4 tons of TNT.
How is it possible for WTC1's collapse to register such vastly different seismic results if explosive charges in the foundations were not being used? Granted, both towers didn't collapse at exactly the same time, however there is no way to explain such a huge difference in the seismic readings due un-aided collapse.
Consider this picture:
According to Newton's first law of motion, the law of inertia , an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. According to the official collapse theory the laws of science are violated because the momentum of the top section pictured would not be conserved according to newton's second law of motion the law of conservation of momentum. This angular momentum did not continue, rather its course changed, it fell straight into the building and was pulvarized into a fine dust with debris exiting at a greater than 45 degree angle upwards. Remember collapsing debris can only be projected downward, thus horizontally projected debris would be considered the extreme case... Debris scattered from the WTC actually exceeded this.
The weakened steel due to the fires theory resutling in the collapse of the building does not fit in with or explain what I posted above, if it does please point out how it does. The data I posted works with the explosives theory quite well. The seismic readings have been verified and recorded by multiple sources (I didn't even include the WTC1's 9 pre-collapse detonations recorded).
*edit*
Where on earth did the energy come from to pulvarize the concrete to a fine dust and project debris out so clearly in a mushroom formation? This is the top of the explosion, you can drop a brick of concrete from over 1000 feet high onto a paved surface and it would break into small peices, but certainly not dust... where does this kinetic energy come from?
.jpg)
