WTC 7 (Building 7)

[hiper]

That's political rhetoric, not engineering analysis.

And your reason for what you see as a controlled demolition of WTC 7 is. . . .

And this proves that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition?????

Given what governments are capable of...

Given that in the case of WTC 7 ; a simultaneous and total structural failure without explosives being in play is just undefendable...

Given that it would have been impossible to rig the WTC 7 demo job on 9/11...

this would imply foreknowledge and of course would place the other events on that day in a whole other light.

Look I don't like the outcome of these observations but I don't want to shy away from it either.

 

[Mick West]

Given that in the case of WTC 7 ; a simultaneous and total structural failure without explosives being in play is just undefendable...

That's the key point of disagreement here. Why is it "undefendable"?

And what exactly is simultaneous about it? The collapse started in one area, and then proceeded to the rest of the building.

 

[F4Jock]

Given what governments are capable of...

Given that in the case of WTC 7 ; a simultaneous and total structural failure without explosives being in play is just undefendable...


Given that it would have been impossible to rig the WTC 7 demo job on 9/11...
this would imply foreknowledge and of course would place the other events on that day in a whole other light.

Look I don't like the outcome of these observations but I don't want to shy away from it either.

.

1) Yes, governments are capable of lots.
2) The structural failure of WTC has been scientifically explained from an exhaustive structural and observational standpoint. Why do you choose not to accept these conclusions? Just because you regard certain entities you don't trust as "capable?"
3) Agreed that nothing could have been planted on 9/11 but you are ignoring the fact that nothing explosive could have survived the intense fire in the area that collapsed first thereby negating the thesis that this was caused by detonation of anything.
4) You're right! You shouldn't like the outcome of these "observations" as that is just what they are; "observations" not based on any evidence that have led to unfounded conspiracy theories.

 

[hiper]

That's the key point of disagreement here. Why is it "undefendable"?

And what exactly is simultaneous about it? The collapse started in one area, and then proceeded to the rest of the building.

Look the problem is that George W. Bush said on 9/11 that it were the 'terrorists' who did it... the same very day.
All the post-investigation had to be conducted along this narrative which is exactly what NIST's job was and exactly what NIST did.
The NIST investigation had to be tailored on this narrative.
NIST's WTC 7 collapse animation was tailored on total structural collapse due to fire.

Hell I can make a WTC 7 collapse animation based on a pink bunny sitting on top being the cause.

A scientific method would be to first investigate something and based on the findings point a finger at someone.
Here the president first points a finger and then the investigation has to follow suit.
By doing so the investigation de facto didn't matter and was of secondary importance.
This is not a very good way to get to the bottom of something.

And that's the point : NIST was not meant to get to the bottom.

 

[F4Jock]

Look the problem is that George W. Bush said on 9/11 that it were the 'terrorists' who did it... the same very day.
All the post-investigation had to be conducted along this narrative which is exactly what NIST's job was and exactly what NIST did.
The NIST investigation had to be tailored on this narrative.
NIST's WTC 7 collapse animation was tailored on total structural collapse due to fire.

Hell I can make a WTC 7 collapse animation based on a pink bunny sitting on top being the cause.

A scientific method would be to first investigate something and based on the findings point a finger at someone.
Here the president first points a finger and then the investigation has to follow suit.
By doing so the investigation de facto didn't matter and was of secondary importance.
This is not a very good way to get to the bottom of something.

And that's the point : NIST was not meant to get to the bottom.

Sorry but you make so many assumptions here that you invalidate your own arguments. As well, what do you call people who commandeer four aircraft and fly three of them into buildings causing multiple deaths, "misguided pilots?"

Wow! The very same day???? Don't you think GWB has lots better and more contemporaneous intel than we do? I'd hope that he'd know something pretty damned fast, wouldn't you?

Have you considered that the more opinions you offer the further you weaken your arguments?

 

[hiper]

Wow! The very same day???? Don't you think GWB has lots better and more contemporaneous intel than we do? ?

Well if the entire US defense system was blindsided by a couple of Arabs with box cutters I'd say some kind
of investigation was in order.

 

[F4Jock]

Well if the entire US defense system was blindsided by a couple of Arabs with box cutters I'd say some kind
of investigation was in order.

Which they did. Problem was that we were NOT prepared for this in any way because we were just too damned stupid and trusting. Hell, our comms systems weren't even integrated. Remember, to this point hijackers had never used panes as missiles.

Years before 9/11 based on my love of WWII history I postulated this as a possible move if someone was nuts or dedicated enough. Research the kamikaze. Hundreds if not thousands of Japanese pilots were dedicated and religious enough (Emperor was God) to attempt essentially the same thing, AND in the face of defensive fire and with moving targets.

 

[hiper]

Am I the only sane person on this page?

Weeks of preparation, explosives, and a dedicated expert demolition team are required to bring down a building in the way WTC 7 came down.
And I have to believe fire did this on it's own?
Come on people.

 

[Jazzy]

a simultaneous and total structural failure without explosives being in play is just undefendable

It wasn't at all simultaneous. To call it so is indefensible.

Weeks of preparation, explosives, and a dedicated expert demolition team are required to bring down a building in the way WTC 7 came down. And I have to believe fire did this on it's own?

What if WTC 1 had NOT struck WTC 7 as it collapsed?

Wouldn't your "weeks of preparation, explosives, and dedicated expert demolition team" have been entirely wasted? How could "they" claim anything? How would the fire have been justified?

How was anyone to know that WTC 1 was going to strike WTC 7?

How did explosives withstand seven hours of un-fought and free-ranging fire?

Are you "the only sane person on this page"?

 

[F4Jock]

Am I the only sane person on this page?

Weeks of preparation, explosives, and a dedicated expert demolition team are required to bring down a building in the way WTC 7 came down.
And I have to believe fire did this on it's own?
Come on people.

So far you have presented not one fact to prove your hypothesis. Either prove your thesis or retract it.

 

[F4Jock]

It wasn't at all simultaneous. To call it so is indefensible.

Or ....... Insane? Yeah I know Mick. Politeness and all that but the quote I'm responding to was "Am I the only sane person on this page?" I think I'm more than justified in casting the same aspersions on someone who implies I'm crazy!!

 

[hiper]

So far you have presented not one fact to prove your hypothesis. Either prove your thesis or retract it.

The point I am trying to make is this...

WTC 7's collapse is quite simply unique ; collapsing the way it did due to fire.
A steel buidling that collapses like a controlled demo only due to fire.
At the same time NIST's investigation was being gagged from day 1 by the terrorist narrative put out by the administration.

This building collapse deserves an ungagged, unbiased and external investigation.
I don't see how anyone can be against this.

If there is nothing to hide why oppose a new investigation.
Am I the only insane on this page?




"they must find it difficult those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as the authority"

Gerald Massey

 

[Cairenn]

Because the investigation has ALREADY been done.

Can you explain how it could have been rigged?

 

[hiper]

Because the investigation has ALREADY been done.

Can you explain how it could have been rigged?

The investigation i presume you mean...yes.

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01_004108.pdf

"NIST has stated that it found no corroborating
evidence to suggest that explosives where used
to bring down the buildings"

- Catherine S. Fletcher
Freedom of information act officer, NIST
page 4 of pdf




"NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue"

- Catherine S. Fletcher
Freedom of information act officer, NIST
page 4 of pdf

This is tailoring the investigation to the preset narrative.

 

[F4Jock]

The point I am trying to make is this...

WTC 7's collapse is quite simply unique ; collapsing the way it did due to fire.
A steel buidling that collapses like a controlled demo only due to fire.
At the same time NIST's investigation was being gagged from day 1 by the terrorist narrative put out by the administration.

This building collapse deserves an ungagged, unbiased and external investigation.
I don't see how anyone can be against this.

If there is nothing to hide why oppose a new investigation.
Am I the only insane on this page?




"they must find it difficult those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as the authority"

Gerald Massey

Once again, no facts, no proof. And it is NOT unique. I've studied exhaustive analyses of the entire WTC collapse as well as that of the Pentagon. I'm an engineer, a firefighter (past) and a pilot (past) I have the experience and education to evaluate this information. I also have a proven decades-long disdain for authority and cynicism going back to high school. I was given a hiatus from college for "academic arrogance" I believe.

And your experience is.....?

 

[hiper]

Once again, no facts, no proof.

And your experience is.....?

It's a real life fact that 99.999% of buidlings that collapse the way WTC 7 did do so due to involvement of an expert demolition team.

Proof? Well at first they tried to get the same effect with gasoline and a match but that didn't work very well.

Experienced enough to question everything in life.

 

[F4Jock]

It's a real life fact that 99.999% of buidlings that collapse the way WTC 7 did do so due to involvement of an expert demolition team.

Proof? Well at first they tried to get the same effect with gasoline and a match but that didn't work very well.

Experienced enough to question everything in life.

But apparently not educated enough. For instance, I know what the percent structural loading on the WTC buildings was before the planes hit. Do you? I know how those buildings were designed and constructed. Do you? I know why one tower fell before the other. Do you?

The gasoline theory was shown to be incorrect. "They" did, however, prove that after the Jet-A ignition, the sustained burn of the building contents was enough, over time, to weaken the steel to the point of failure.

Sorry but your protestations become increasingly more desperate as you proceed.

 

[Pete Tar]

It's also a real life fact that 99.999% of buildings weren't in the presence of a 110-story building collapse.

 

[Cairenn]

Let me use my expertise in a different field here.

Pottery, even porcelain can be fired in a wood fired kiln. Most stoneware needs a temperature of around 2100 degrees, porcelain will need a temperature of around 2300 degrees. Wood burns at temperatures from just over 400 degrees to about 900 degrees. BUT in a kiln it can be used to reach MUCH higher temperatures.

It is quite possible for the building to have acted somewhat like a kiln. Closed off areas would have allowed the fire to burn at a much higher temperature. In fact the timing of the collapse makes this look like a reality to me.

You say that they 'didn't test for explosives'. If you have an equine that looks like a horse, acts like a horse, one doesn't insist on DNA testing to prove that it's not a zebra. Or say that you have equine droppings on a street in Dallas. It is known that horse drawn carriages use that street (I know the horses should have diapers on) and the zoo is not in town, you don't go theorizing that they came from a zebra.

 

[F4Jock]

It's also a real life fact that 99.999% of buildings weren't in the presence of a 110-story building collapse.

I'm beginning to wonder why, in the presence of such rampant ignorance, we even bother. I'm starting to think "Screw 'em, let 'em wallow in their own stupidity while some of us actually deal with reality." I'd venture to say that 99.999% of humanity doesn't have the intelligence to come in out of the rain or feels that it's up to me to provide them with an umbrella.

 

[Jazzy]

WTC 7's collapse is quite simply unique; collapsing the way it did due to fire.

All tall long-span floor/slender column steel buildings will collapse after seven hours of uncontrolled fire.

At the same time NIST's investigation was being gagged from day 1 by the terrorist narrative put out by the administration.

NIST's report is a small masterpiece of modern forensic engineering analysis. It shows no sign of "gagging".

This building collapse deserves an ungagged, unbiased and external investigation. I don't see how anyone can be against this.

I am, because: a) It's been done already. b) Whatever might be going on right now, you're not going to give yourself the chance to be aware of.

Am I the only insane on this page?

If you may be judged insane by asking, but not answering, questions, then YES YOU ARE.

"they must find it difficult those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as the authority"

And that is you. You are already not handling the truth:

1) Was the collapse simultaneous? Yes or no?

2) How was anyone to know that WTC 1 was going to strike WTC 7?

3) How did explosives withstand seven hours of un-fought and free-ranging fire?

 

[Grieves]

I know why one tower fell before the other. Do you?

Omniscience. That's a neat trick. Probably picked that one up during your hiatus from college.

You say that they 'didn't test for explosives'. If you have an equine that looks like a horse, acts like a horse, one doesn't insist on DNA testing to prove that it's not a zebra. Or say that you have equine droppings on a street in Dallas. It is known that horse drawn carriages use that street (I know the horses should have diapers on) and the zoo is not in town, you don't go theorizing that they came from a zebra.

On the reverse, if you have a building collapse that looks distinctly like a demolition, that professionals of the demolition trade have been documented as identifying as a demolition with no bias to that assessment, and that dozens of on-scene firefighters alone were quoted as having perceived as a demolition/involving explosives, don't even administer a relatively inexpensive test for explosives residue, because why bother, it was just an unprecedented collapse due to fire, which has never happened before.... and it's only the most crucial investigation perhaps in America's history.

1) Was the collapse simultaneous? Yes or no?

I don't even know what you'd mean by 'simultaneous'... were you looking for 'symmetrical'?

2) How was anyone to know that WTC 1 was going to strike WTC 7?

because they were more or less adjacent. Relevance?

3) How did explosives withstand seven hours of un-fought and free-ranging fire?

By being placed beneath the floors on fire, presumably. You don't have to rig every floor of a building to demolish it unless that building is mostly masonry.

 

[SR1419]

On the reverse, if you have a building collapse that looks distinctly like a demolition, that professionals of the demolition trade have been documented as identifying as a demolition with no bias to that assessment, and that dozens of on-scene firefighters alone were quoted as having perceived as a demolition/involving explosives, don't even administer a relatively inexpensive test for explosives residue, because why bother, it was just an unprecedented collapse due to fire, which has never happened before.... and it's only the most crucial investigation perhaps in America's history.


By being placed beneath the floors on fire, presumably. You don't have to rig every floor of a building to demolish it unless that building is mostly masonry.

Hi Grieves-

any chance you would be so kind as to document the firefighters quoted as having perceived a demolition/involving explosives? I know there are lot of firefighter quotes regarding the creaking, lurching building and being under the impression it was going to collapse...but hadn't seen any quotes of firefighters saying it was an explosive laden demo- I would like to.

Also- How would whoever planted the explosives know which floors were going to be on fire??

Since there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30...I am wondering how did they know where to put the explosives to remain safe from fire.


Also- you said the collapse looks distinctly like a demolition....can you point to another similar demolition where the penthouse falls into the building several seconds before the rest of the building even moves?

thanks!

 

[hiper]

1) Was the collapse simultaneous? Yes or no?

2) How was anyone to know that WTC 1 was going to strike WTC 7?

3) How did explosives withstand seven hours of un-fought and free-ranging fire?

This was a massive steel building.
The symmetrical mode of collapse implies the load bearing structure underneath the building over the entire 330ft length had to fail simultaneously.
How can the alleged structural failure due to fire on one side of the building cause near simultaneous total failure on the unaffected total opposite side of the building.
We are meant to believe some office fires on one side of the building caused not only local structural failure but initiated a building wide structural failure.
Like a house of cards.

There was minimal damage to WTC 7 from the WTC 1 collapse. The bankers trust building which was quite close to WTC 2 did have far more damage for instance.
The explosives would not have been affected because they would be placed at the bottom floors of the building.

First the terrorist narrative was set...how on earth could NIST's investigation come up with anything outside of this preset? Obviously it could not.
NIST as a government institution should have been on the back of the line if one wanted a genuinely independent investigation.

 

[Jazzy]

Omniscience.

Science education, actually.

you have a building collapse that looks distinctly like a demolition

Did it sound like demolition explosives?

I don't even know what you'd mean by 'simultaneous'... were you looking for 'symmetrical'?

Look it up. Don't write before you know.

because they were more or less adjacent. Relevance?

Five hundred feet away isn't "more-or-less adjacent". There were buildings in between.

What is "relevant" is that WTC1 could have fallen in any direction.

By being placed beneath the floors on fire, presumably.

How very perspicacious of them. Seeing into the future like that.

 

[hiper]

Science education, actually.

As a science scholar the events of 9/11 and subsequent government explanation must have left you with quite an internal conflict.

Did it sound like demolition explosives?

There are numerous witnesses to explosions that day...all ignored of course.

Five hundred feet away isn't "more-or-less adjacent". There were buildings in between.
What is "relevant" is that WTC1 could have fallen in any direction.

Yes as a science scholar you should know WTC 1 & 2 should not have fallen in on themselves but have taken the way of least resistance.

How very perspicacious of them. Seeing into the future like that.

Of course the government knew exactly what was happening that day.

 

[Jazzy]

The symmetrical mode of collapse implies the load bearing structure underneath the building over the entire 330ft length had to fail simultaneously.

Simultaneity doesn't feature in the collapse video. You see the penthouse drop several seconds before the fascia.

Only the fascia, the external shell of WTC 7, retained momentary symmetry. It buckled of course, unsupported as it was from within.

You can see that the fascia fell separately because it ended up lying on top of the wreckage.

How can the alleged structural failure due to fire on one side of the building cause near simultaneous total failure

It didn't.

We are meant to believe some office fires on one side of the building

Refer to SR 1419's list.

There was minimal damage to WTC 7 from the WTC 1 collapse.

Sufficient to start the fires. Not so minimal to its frontage.

The bankers trust building which was quite close to WTC 2 did have far more damage for instance.

Were there fires there?

The explosives would not have been affected because they would be placed at the bottom floors of the building.

Non-detonating explosives? If the fireman knew the building was going to collapse an hour previously, then why push a button?

First the terrorist narrative was set

The "terrorist narrative" was obvious with the second plane strike.

NIST as a government institution should have been on the back of the line if one wanted a genuinely independent investigation.

If you were honest you would realize that a "genuinely independent investigation" is something that you wouldn't be able to agree on - ever. You would still be arguing.

The buckling process which accounted for all three buildings isn't part of truther newspeak. As George Orwell observed, if you restrict a language you restrict THOUGHT. Truthers demonstrate this...

 

[hiper]

So you are saying WTC 7 did not collapse with any simultaneity? Take a look at the WTC 7 collapse video.

The only thing that was not simulatneous was NIST's WTC 7 animation of the internal structure... of course to fit the collapse by fire preset.

You are grasping at straws here.

 

[Cairenn]

At a first view, one does think implosion, but once you WATCH it carefully it does not look like an implosion.

Implosions do NOT leave one side of the building draped over the rubble.

If one has decent understanding of materials, it is quite easy to see how the fires could cause the collapse. The more I think, the more the kiln model seems to be a good one for explaining the temperature. The building acted a lot like a climbing kiln.

while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

 

[Pete Tar]

...

What is "relevant" is that WTC1 could have fallen in any direction.
...

Just to clarify, you're referring to ejecta, not the body of the building? It's my understanding that a structure like that cannot 'topple' in any direction as such and only had one choice - to go straight down.

 

[Jazzy]

Take a look at the WTC 7 collapse video.

I've seen it a million times.

It's shot from upwind, from the opposite side to where the damage was inflicted, the internal fires had had to beat upwind to become apparent, the video doesn't show the onset of collapse at all, and it is framed to include the top half of the building only.

The onlooker sees the collapse manifest itself on the left side of the image through the windows of the building as floors drop away behind them, but in fact before any visible external evidence appears HALF of the collapse had already occurred. SIX seconds before...

Where the external fascia buckled was below the video frame, so that is what you watched. The consequence of buckling taking place out-of-frame, the onset of which is silent, with a rapidly increasing vertical acceleration to G.

 

[Jazzy]

Just to clarify, you're referring to ejecta, not the body of the building? It's my understanding that a structure like that cannot 'topple' in any direction as such and only had one choice - to go straight down.

Ejecta indeed. The towers couldn't support themselves at all beyond a shallow angle of lean.

But in my judgement you wouldn't rely on WTC 7 being struck by WTC 1 to generate fire so that you could set off explosives to bring it down, would you? This is such drek.

 

[Pete Tar]

According to Mick's gif, the collapse is initiated in a corner of the ninth floor.
So either there were no fires or damage there but explosives were detonated there, or there was significant damage there that started the collapse.
(Assuming of course anyone opposed thinks that gif is a legitimate approximation of what happened. I suspect they don't.)
How was the data gathered that led to that gif? And what are the objections to it?

 

[hiper]

Jazzy i congratulate you... even in the face of all these counterarguments you remain a
loyal defender of the official explanation.
To sum up if it looks like a duck and quacks like it and smells like it...NIST says it's not a duck!
and they can prove it to with an animation.

 

[Jazzy]

even in the face of all these counterarguments

Point out your counter arguments.

you remain a loyal defender of the official explanation

No, of reason.

To sum up if it looks like a duck and quacks like it and smells like it...NIST says it's not a duck!

Perception is the problem here, and failures in it are your popular sport.

and they can prove it to with an animation.

They had already proved it with the fire timeline, tests on fire structural failure modes, and structural engineering analysis. That they could manage to develop a simulation that matched within a percent or so what little was recorded on video was confirmatory. Well, to anyone with any understanding in this field.

1) Was the collapse simultaneous? Yes or no?

2) How was anyone to know that WTC 1 was going to strike WTC 7?

3) How did explosives withstand seven hours of un-fought and free-ranging fire? < ? > How would they have known where to put the explosives when they didn't know where WTC 7 was to be struck?

You just can't answer these questions, can you?

 

[hiper]

You just can't answer these questions, can you?

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/36951

If anything the WTC 7 collapse merits a serious investigation...

NIST not even testing for explosive residue is your idea of a serious, independent institution doing thorough research?

 

[F4Jock]

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/36951

If anything the WTC 7 collapse merits a serious investigation...

NIST not even testing for explosive residue is your idea of a serious, independent institution doing thorough research?

You are wrong.

"Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics"

 

[hiper]

You are wrong.

"Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics"

Not testing for something because you don't think you are going to find something is the pinnacle of non-science
yet this is exactly what NIST did.

 

[George B]

You are wrong.

"Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics"

I have little or no experience with demolition, engineering, or architecture, etc. just the average joe's understanding; however, the WTC events were unprecedented . . . apperared to be one of a kind never before experienced and have yet to be duplicated. . . except in computer simulations (of course) where the data cannot be shared or validated for security reasons. . . . the hot spots generated under all three buildings (except for buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 ) in my mind have never been satisfactorily explained as well. . . so it is not beyond my devious and suspicious nature to believe there may be something we just don't know! Is there some technology we are unaware of . . .? Why not turn over as many rocks as possible to see what might crawl out?

 

[Mick West]

I have little or no experience with demolition, engineering, or architecture, etc. just the average joe's understanding; however, the WTC events were unprecedented . . . apperared to be one of a kind never before experienced and have yet to be duplicated. . . except in computer simulations (of course) where the data cannot be shared or validated for security reasons. . . . the hot spots generated under all three buildings (except for buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 ) in my mind have never been satisfactorily explained as well. . . so it is not beyond my devious and suspicious nature to believe there may be something we just don't know! Is there some technology we are unaware of . . .? Why not turn over as many rocks as possible to see what might crawl out?

I think the planes flying into the building and then the fire seemed like such an obvious cause that it seemed ludicrous to check for something like "technology we are unaware of" that somehow survived the impact, then the fires, and then destroyed the building in such a way that most engineers though it was the fires.