Ha! no, payne, your story has always been that the 30 floors and the 15 floors could not collapse from the damage done by the airliners or the small, random short duration fires. My position has always been that the extreme damage from aircraft impacts and HUGE FUKING FIRES caused the towers to collapse.

As you have proven time and again, you are totally ignorant of the laws of science and the nature of fire. Particularly, uncontrolled, unmanageable, unchecked fire.

Here's the thing about fire, payne, the vast majority of people on this planet are familiar with, experienced with, and enjoy the benefits of fire and heat when under control and manageable. Striking a match, flicking a Bic, heating their homes, cooking their food, firing up a backyard grill, burning leaves and trash, getting a campfire going, and so on. Their knowledge of and experience with fire and heat is limited to the friendly aspects of it. You are one of these people.

And, some percentage of those lacking knowledge of the dangers of uncontrolled fire have felt the terrible sting of fire and heat when it gets out of control, whether it be the loss of property, painful injury, or death.

There are far fewer people on this planet who are educated in fire science, who are trained, equipped and experienced in dealing with and combatting uncontrolled fires. These are the fire engineers and fire fighters. You are not among them.

"Fire" is, in many respects, a generic term that means anything from discharging a firearm to logs burning in a fireplace to the fire in a burning building. Fire is in fact a chemical reaction known as combustion, it is the combination of heat, fuel and oxygen. Flames and smoke are byproducts of combustion. IOW, heat and fire are two different things. Combustion can occur without producing flame. Just because no flame is visible doesn't mean combustion is not taking place.

In a building fire, searing hot gas, not flame and smoke, can whistle through a crack as thin as a sheet of paper, it can slip under a door, blow through a key hole, charge up inside a wall, burning insulation, melting electrical wire, switches and outlets, it can boil water in metal pipes, turn it to steam, cause the pipes to burst. it can blast through AC and heating ducts where it will burst into another part of the building and the fire spreads.

Organic compounds, such as wood, paper, plastics, and fabrics, all contain oxygen molecules which can complete the "fire triangle --heat, fuel and oxygen--and undergo combustion without an outside source of oxygen and without producing flames.

In a closed room without ventilation, a couch, chair, or bed can smoulder for hours without a whif of air or producing a lick of flame. Hot gas, smoke, and combustion particles rise to the ceiling, cool and descend to be heated and rise again, creating a circulation of increasingly hotter gases and particles. Temperatures inside the room can reach 1800F to 2000F, door knobs get red hot, light metals in the room melt and plastics become liquid. Flashover conditions have developed, all the beast needs is a breath of air. An alert firefighter can see the signs without ever breaching the room. The thing in the room breaths, smoke and hot gas puffs out under the door or other small crack and is drawn back in again. Open the door and it will suck in a huge gust of air and explode.

Conditions inside a burning building are extremely dangerous, the uncertainty factor is very high, no firefighter knows going in what can possibly happen, how the fire will behave. This is what we train for every day we are on duty. This is why we gear up with the best protective clothing and equipment the city budget can afford.

The fires in the twin towers were huge, payne, they were spread over dozens of acres of floors containing thousands of tons of organic combustibles. It is entirely possible that flashover conditions could have developed in the closed spaces within the core area. Temps in there could have easily reached 1800F to 2000F. And, the core area is where the core columns were located.

It is little wonder that a woman trapped on the 103rd floor in the North Tower screamed in fear to the dispatcher on the phone that it was very hot in there, that they were "burning up."

We must ask also why a commodities trader and his assistant were trapped in their office on the 86th floor of the North Tower, 8 floors below the lowest floor in the impact zone. Why did this man get on the phone to a NYC TV station and tell the world that they were trapped, that they couldn't open the door, that debris had blocked it, that debris was all around them, that smoke was coming in from the hallway, that debris was falling upon and around them, and that part of the core had been blown out. Fear on the 86th Floor

Fire Engineering: WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER: INITIAL RESPONSE
At no time in world history has a fire department ever been called on to respond to a single incident of such magnitude as the attack on the World Trade Center.

You've got your ridiculous, unbelievable little theories about 9/11, none of which you are able to justify with any sort of reason, experience, knowledge or critical thought. Stick with them, payne, but don't pretend that you can accurately determine the fire situation in the twin towers by looking at a picture.

No, I only accept the truth about the attack on the Pentagon. Chandler prefaced his video with the testimony of 30 eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the building. And, based on the overwhelming evidence that a jet liner did in fact hit the Pentagon, he had no choice but to agree. Up to a point. Chandler could not escape the ridiculous notion that the jet was unmanned. Chandler only confirms that a Boeing jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. This does not mean that I accept in any way, shape or form his pseudo-scientific explanation of a controlled demolition of the WTC towers.

At 1:05:28 in his video, Chandler describes the collision of the right engine with a large generator trailer on the Pentagon lawn, and at 1:06:20, he explains why the jet missed the cable spools on the lawn. In his own words, "One thing that did not happen was the collision with the cable spools that were sitting on the lawn. It turns out that the geometry of the impact allowed the plane to clear the spools."

Ong and Sweeney made their calls on the air phones installed in the cabins. Sweeney had to borrow a credit card to make the call.

13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified). Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites. There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants: Betty Ong on Flight 11 and CeeCee Lyles on Flight 93

Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson, said it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations. Marvin Sirbu, professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight." Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights.

9-11TV DVDs by and for the 9/11 truth movement

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras

According to the FBI, there were 85 video surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have captured some parts of the Pentagon event on 9/11. The FBI confiscated some of the recordings from those cameras very shortly after the event, and the rest over the following days. This act by the government fueled the suspicions of those questioning a large plane impact into the Pentagon. It is known that the FBI confiscated much 9/11 evidence, including evidence at all four crash sites; thus their confiscations at the Pentagon were typical, not unusual. However, since the two videos that were released do appear to contain useful information about what hit the Pentagon, we should not automatically assume the FBI is being dishonest here.

Why very few cameras captured the impact event

There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event.

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

History

The well-known “5-frames” from a Pentagon surveillance camera were first released in March of 2002. The only frame that appears to include the plane has a post obstructing the camera’s view of almost everything but the tail fin.

In December 2004, Judicial Watch, a public interest group, filed a FOIA request on behalf of Scott Bingham. The request was for surveillance camera footage that might show the plane approaching and/or hitting the Pentagon.

The FBI identified 85 surveillance cameras that were located in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have revealed the plane. After the Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended in 2006, the Department of Defense released 4 of those videos2, including a 200 frame extended version of the 5-frame sequence first released in 2002.

Completely new to the public in 2006 were the 183 frames that were released from a second identical surveillance camera located adjacent to the first camera within the same security checkpoint. One of these new frames provided an unobstructed view of the plane, but at such low contrast and resolution it was not initially noticed or reported as such. Instead, what appears to be the same white smoke seen in the crucial frame from the first camera (released in 2002) is also seen at the edge of the second camera’s crucial frame. The shape of the white smoke was mistakenly identified in news media as the plane’s nose.3

What the two Pentagon camera recordings reveal

Both of the two Pentagon surveillance cameras were in a security check point located about 833 feet north of the impact point. Both cameras show what appears to be white smoke trailing the approach of a rapidly moving object. The frames that followed the impact of that object show a massive orange fireball, quickly followed by a rising column of black smoke, and then debris fragments raining down and landing near the two cameras six to nine seconds after the impact.4

The second Pentagon camera had an unobstructed view, and has one frame which appears to show a plane near the right edge of the frame, and appears to have the same white smoke trail that is seen in the 5-frame sequence. In a way similar to the identical first (5-frames) camera, the recordings from this second camera yielded a low resolution image of distant objects due in part to their wide-angle lenses, so the images do not make clear what is revealed by the second camera’s frames either. But what does appear in the crucial frame from the second camera resembles a somewhat out-of-focus airliner, including the tail fin and trailing smoke as seen in the adjacent “5-frame” camera.

The Pentagon is one of the largest office buildings in the world. It is the supreme headquarters of the United States armed forces. The Pentagon occupies an area of 6.5 million square feet, it is 921 feet long on a side, that's a total of 4605 feet around. I would imagine that surveillance cameras monitored all sides of the building. If they were divided equally around the building, then only 17 were on the side hit by the jet.

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

The reason no towers over 440 ft have been demolished with explosives before or after 9/11 is that all buildings taller than that have not needed to be demolished.
You have no valid explanation of how the same weight the towers had held up for over half a century could crush them to the ground in under 15 seconds.
Truth is not spelled "troof." Those who spell it that way are those who have no respect for truth . . . the same people who always hide behind gutless anonymity.
The same people who try to pretend that Newton's Third Law allowed the towers to collapse without an equal and opposite reaction.