[deleted]

How many building that tall took a plane crash and have that much of a fire?

However it had a massive shock from two buildings crash next to it and a large oil supply in the basement.

I didn't know about the large oil supply in the basement. Can you source that?

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/elitewatch_7wtc.html "A cleanup is underway to remove tens of thousands of gallons of oil that spilled from 7 World Trade Center when the 47-story office tower collapsed on Sept. 11, according to a published report.

Citing an environmental impact report made public by the Empire State Development Corp., Newsday reported Thursday that 130,000 gallons of oil leaked from the Con Edison substation contained within the building.

Additional oil leaked from two 6,000-gallon storage tanks owned by Salomon Smith Barney, and conduits beneath the building may have contained asbestos and feeder lines wrapped in a material containing toxins, the report said.

Two 11,690-gallon diesel fuel tanks operated by Silverstein Properties were also inside the building, but were removed in March and April and showed no evidence of spillage, Newsday said. "

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_060602_oil.html [link expired]

That does not mean it did not burn, just that it did not all burn. 10,000 gallons could have burned and still have had a major leak.

You're gonna have muscle aches from a stretch like that. For a building with so much fire that it collapsed from burning even though it was mostly granite, concrete and steel, a huge amount of diesel was left intact. add up the spillage and explain why that much diesel didn't catch fire.

I didn't know about the large oil supply in the basement. Can you source that?

Try here and here.

The building collapsed in to itself.

Sort of what I would expect from a building whose steel frame had given way.

Just thinking about the physics, it seems that building would tip over.

Absolutely not. That is cartoon physics, that is lego physics. The forces on a building are straight down. It would tip over if either the bottom were blown out on one side or it were pushed over. Buildings do not fall sideways, they fall down.

But to fully come down that quickly, under 15 seconds.

Once a collapse starts it goes pretty quickly. The collapsing piece hit lower already weakened pieces and they collapse from the blow and the shock wave continues down.

The problem for you is that the diesel didn't even burn.See my reply to this same question.

Why is this so difficult? Because it might prove acts of treason by powerful people. Can't have that now, can we?

Many of the engineers are in fields other than structural engineering, such as electrical engineering. Many of the architects are residential or landscape architects. That hardly qualifies them to analyze the structural collapse of the WTC towers. As citizens, they have the right to make their views heard. But it's disingenuous at best to tout the number 1328 Architects and Engineers as meaningful of anything.

I'm not impressed that Joe the retired landscape architect is willing to stake his reputation. His reputation adds no value. Indeed, argument by imminent authority is a pretty weak argument. Show me the peer-reviewed science, not press conferences.

A belief in god.

what an amazingly tiny percentage of architects and engineers...

Well, a list of certified professional civil and structural engineers would be helpful, rather than a list of landscape architects and electrical engineers.

Why is it difficult? Because no one has seen that sort of event before, and there will be hitherto-unknown phenomena, which some people will attribute to some sort of conspiracy.

And as for the scientific method? Hardly. The guy starts out making all sorts of logical fallacies, and then goes on from there. Don't kid yourself.

To be honest, I don't know how I feel about the 9/11 conspiracy but I'll play devil's advocate for a minute.

Say you're right and some hitherto-unknown phenomena caused all three towers to collapse, why wouldn't we want to learn more about it so we can prevent it from happening again in the future? These architects & engineers raise some excellent questions and seem to have poked holes in several 'official' arguments and are trying to solve issues (like the WTC7 collapse) that weren't even brought up in the official investigation. I think the main argument you should hear from 9/11 'truthers' is, if the government is telling the truth about the events that took place on 9/11, and there is seemingly good evidence to support a conspiracy theory, why won't they release key pieces of evidence to disprove them? (ie: the video tapes of the plane hitting the Pentagon, reasons for chemical traces of thermite in the rubble, etc.)

Again, just playing devil's advocate.

As citizens of a very powerful country, we have to hope for transparency. When we don't get it's like feeding time at the conspiracy trough. Releasing the Pentagon surveillance tapes wouldn't cost them a dime and would personally make me feel a whole helluvalot better. Just. Sayin'.