As to your WTC question—shouldn’t you be asking why in the world someone would be wiring a 47 story building to implode because it had 2 small fires in it?
This has already been covered on the other 9/11 topic here:
Here’s what Silverstein apparently said: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
After the building was already on fire, they decided to go in, place explosives, and knock it down (they had something like eight hours in which to do so, since the building didn’t finally fall until late afternoon). They openly talked about it and planned it, which means that it had nothing to do with any sort of a conspiracy. Also, if it was only on fire, why would they decide to pull it down? If the fire wasn’t enough to do major structural damage to the building, then it would make more sense to just leave the building there and repair what would be mainly cosmetic damage. But they decided to pull it, which meant that they thought that the fire alone was enough to destroy the building, and so they wanted to destroy it before the fire did so that it would fall in a less dangerous way. So really, what Silverstein is saying is that 1) the fires alone were enough to make the buildings fall, and 2) the fall of the building had nothing to do with any sort of government conspiracy.
Obviously, there is no way the buildings fell without thermite charges that severed the floors beneath in a carefully, precisely controlled demolition.
First: how would the people get in to the buildings and put in lots of explosives and wiring without the people who work there noticing? Also, since you’re claiming that it fell without any resistance, this would require them rigging every single support column with explosives. Don’t you think that would be a bit noticeable, not to mention time-consuming?
Second: thermite is rather flammable, as you might imagine. It would have burned at once in the big fuel fire. So if thermite was used, it would have been used at once, and the buildings would have fallen immediately (it would have melted completely through the steel beams, rather than just softening bits of metal here or there). But the buildings didn’t fall at once.
Third: Of course there are ways that the buildings could have fallen without carefully-placed thermite charges. For example, the supports on the floors where the fires were gave way, and the weight of the floors above crashing onto those below smashed the successive floors’ supports. It has happened before to other buildings, when their support structure didn’t hold up to the weight anymore for whatever reason (consider the L’Ambiance Plaza in Connecticut, and a 21-storey building in LA in 1985, and a building at Bailey’s Crossroads, Virginia in 1973, and Ronan Point Flats in London in 1968, and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. . .it’s called progressive collapse). All it takes is for the supports to be weakened. . .such as when the rivets and bolts holding them in place get softened.
Another poster asked if there wasn’t any other way for buildings to fall—well, of course there are—but, we’re talking about the official explanation here—
Hold on, you just said: “Obviously, there is no way the buildings fell without thermite charges that severed the floors beneath in a carefully, precisely controlled demolition.”
and keep in mind that never in the history of modern architecture before or since 911 has a building collapsed due to fire
Um, you might want to re-evaluate that comment a bit.