An answer to Rev Pesky from this thread.
Floor failure in the Twin Towers was not, in the end, considered to be the collapse mechanism. Indeed, according to the NIST reports, the collapse depended on the strength of the floors initially to pull the perimeter columns in. NIST, in their 10,000-page report, doesn't go on to explain how the collapse progresses but the most widely distributed theory, incredibly enough, is that the top part of the building crushed down the rest of the building, column on column.
There's plenty of video of both towers collapsing, and they both begin to collapse at the point the airplanes entered the building. That would have been the floors most damaged by the aircraft entering and exploding. The south tower collapsed first, even though it was hit some 18 minutes after the north tower. When the aircraft hit the south tower, it hit on a corner, and that is the point where the collapse begins. There is even a tilt of the tower at that point.
The north didn't collapse until somewhat later, but again, the collapse began on the floor where the aircraft entered the building. Floors, actually, because the aircraft is more than a single floor high. While the south tower collapse began with a tilt (because a corner of the tower was most severely damaged), the north tower went straight down. What made the north tower collapse look so much like an explosion was the floors pancaking, and causing a rush of air and smoke to the outside.
If the aircraft crashing into the buildings didn't cause the buildings to collapse, it was the most incredible coincidence in the history of the universe. If, as some believe, there were charges placed into the buildings before the crashes, one can only wonder at the superb flying skills of the pilots, who apparently manually flew the aricraft into exactly the spots on the buildings where those charges were placed. If they had missed, or if the charges had been placed on some other floors, the results of that would have been obvious.
Part of the reason I believe the individual floors couldn't hold the weight of the floors above is because I listened to an interview with one of the architects, after the fact. Of course he was asked the question about the WTC being able to 'withstand the force of a 747 crashing into it'. His reply was that he stood by that assessment, but that they hadn't counted on the fire caused by the airplane fuel. And that's when he mentioned about the floors being hung from the external structure, so as to provide the 'open flooring' that was becoming the thing in office buildings.
So perhaps he was lying, but the evidencce of the video doesn't lie. Two airplanes hit two buildings. One hit directly on, in fact almost perfectly in the center of the building, and the other came in on a descending curve, and entered the building across one of the corners. That building started to collapse on that corner, and the other building, while standing a bit longer, also collapsed, starting on the floor(s) where the aircraft hit.
Many people have spent much time and money ignoring that evidence. But that's their fault, not mine.
And then there's the anthrax. Was that a part of the plan, or was that a coincidence?