To think that a 767 loaded with fuel could not take down just about any building on the planet is to stand up and say I am an idiot.

http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2011/09/16/911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JeremyRHammond+(Jeremy+R.+Hammond)

9/11 sceptic would like you to believe something more than a plane crash occurred, it’s an interesting claim considering how little expertise he obviously has (claiming the possible to be impossible without providing any sort of reference, convincing strategy!)

Jack1952 Didn’t really do his research either, a similar situation occurred in Holland where a fire behaved just like it did in the WTC fires and with similar results (building collapsed in pretty much the same way, dissimilarities mostly due to lack of a plane causing structural damage)

But for most of the facts on the matter, read the article listed above and check out the concepts discussed there for yourself if you’re still unsure.

Keep in mind this one little fact: the vast majority (statistically around 90+%) of documentaries contain false, exaggerated, misinterpreted and misconstrued information, there is rarely an objective documentary as the creator of the film will always try to draw an audience, sell a product, convince people of their side of the argument. Experts speaking about demolition’s causing the collapse of the towers do so because their livelihood depends on it, they spent years claiming it was explosions and they would look quite dumb if they suddenly admitted they were wrong, so of course they will remain adamant about their stance even in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Another thing you should keep in mind is the word play that occurs here, they title their documentary “explosive EVIDENCE” while all they provide in the documentary is insinuations, there isn’t a shred of actual evidence at all.

You don’t prove something by bringing up similarities or uncertainties, you prove something by disproving all possibilities until only one answer remains, use a court-of-law approach to this concept, a man isn’t a suspect because he COULD have been at the crime-scene, a man is a suspect because he COULDN’T have been anywhere else.

Same for the WTC towers, it isn’t proven to have been explosions because it could have been, it will only be proven once it couldn’t have been anything else, and at present there is much more proof against the possibility of explosions than for it, so tell me, which is more believable?

I chose to come out of my hole and do a little research and you are right. No building has ever collapsed after a plane crash and fire. Although no plane the size of those airliners flying at full throttle has ever crashed into buildings like the twin towers either. Pesky little detail, that.

Fact!

The planes and fires were physically incapable of achieving thta collapse. Bother to find out why or stay in your hole. Your choice.