Willravel

I'm in contact with several people who are experts in fields of physics, engineering, and forensics, but I'm haveing trouble bringing up the nature of my questions. How does one politely ask, "Do you see something fishy about the greatest tragety on American soil in the past 50 years, something that effected most of us to our core?" I tried being up front with several people and was scoffed at (I didn't know people still scoffed). I know it's their right to refuse my request, and I respect that, but it's frustrating. It feels like I'm hitting a wall on this.

I am not satisfied with the explainations of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7. I don't understand how moderate damage and fires could topple WTC 1 and 2 so quickly. Had they fallen after 15-20 hours, and had the fires grown instead of died down, then I might understand their collapse. Also, I do not see an asymetrical collapse in WTC 7. I saw how quickly the top right fell, but it was lss than a fraction of a second that it was ahead of the rest of the building. After reading about high rise fires in other cases not connected with 9/11, I can see plainly that the steel frames of buildings are never effected by the fire at all. While the interrior of the building sees damage, the steel frame survives unscathed (sp?).

It bears repeating that I appreciate the efforts of those who have made this thread a refuge of reason and respect. You have my thanks.