There is plenty of witness testimony and video evidence in the public domain to show that planes and fuel, and whatever other office items burning in buildings 1 and 2 could not have cause the rapid, sudden and symmetric collapse of those buildings.
I will focus on building #7 as it is a much more obvious example of controlled demolition.
Hydrocarbon fires have never in history caused a total collapse of a steel-framed building.
Moreover, even if a fire could cause a steel building to collapse, it is statistically extremely improbable that all support columns would have failed simultaneously and symmetrically. The building came down straight into its footprint.
Lastly, explain to me how these firefighters knew the building 7 was ‘going to blow up’ (in their own words).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

In the videos, you can clearly see that some parts of the plane go all the way through the building and out the other side. Wouldn’t a good portion of the fuel follow?

The business of “finding” some of the hijackers’ ids on the streets of New York [not sure where I heard that one] is ludicrous.

Suggesting that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed because of contamination by “white dust” is also absurd. The building was on fire, yet some ad hoc group found and used sufficient explosives to do what looks like a controlled demolition in about 8 hours, secretively? Come on!

And I watched the film of those buildings coming down. Granted, I have no experience with high temperatures, massive structures or materials science; but, to me, it looked as if the outer shell of concrete was being pulverized and then falling outward as if from a waterfall. That image troubles me greatly, as I would have expected larger chunks of concrete, rather than the relatively fluid looking mass of debris that poured out over the sides of the collapsing building.

I would love to hear you engineers’ takes on these observations, if you’re still in the conversation.

Building 7 started with an internal collapse of the East penthouse, which starts the collapse 9 seconds before we see the front of the building collapse. It took 14 seconds, not 9 and again this is no where close to free fall speed.

I’m sorry to say that you sound a lot more like a government stooge than a true skeptic. Instead of exploring the events of 9-11 with an open and discerning mind you simply pounce on everything that Griffin presented in his book. You focus on explaining how unlikely it is that the Bush Administration may have been complicit in the 9-11 attack. You present no documentary evidence of any sort to support your argument. Instead, perhaps you should be more focused on explaining how unlikely it is that three steel and concrete buildings collapsed at nearly free-fall speed (mainly) due to fire (according to the official theory) even though this has never happened before or nice 9-11. Yes buildings 1 and 2 were hit by airplanes, but not building 7. There is ample video evidence and witness testimony to examine the collapses of the buildings in a scientific and objective manner, which I have done.
Without throwing any accusations, it is extremely unlikely that plane crashes and fires alone brough down buildings 1, 2 and 7, especially considering the manner in which they came down–accelerating all the way down.
I am an engineer by training and profession, a skeptic by nature, and I did my research on this subject, perhaps you should too.

-martin

The disappointing thing about debunkers like Morrock, Michael Shermer and others is that in their rush to convince the reader that 9/11 “conspiracists” belong in the same doghouse as believers in alien abduction, the Loch Ness Monster or a living Elvis, they ignore the glaring inadequacies of the official account and the many legitimate questions that skeptics have raised. They are quick to misrepresent the views of influential skeptics like Griffin, and to treat all dissenting arguments – the credible and the crazy -with uniform disdain.

I have read Griffins’ works and I believe that Morrock’s critique is unfair and even dishonest. For instance, nowhere does Griffin advocate that flights 11 and 175 were piloted by remote control or that there was a command centre at WTC7. Nor does he propose that explosives had to have been planted in the Twin Towers a week before their collapse, during a blackout.

Griffin is lampooned for not having conducted original research, but one has to wonder how Morrock’s credentials as a playwrite or psychohistorian have made him an expert on thermal physics, airline crash scenes, or other technical subjects.

I did find it interesting that Morrock offerred his own theory as to why WTC7 was brought down by demolition, perhaps not realizing that the party line maintains that fire was responsible. Maybe this makes him just another conspiracy wacko.

A further aspect of Griffins’ work that is given short shrift is that he is actually fairly self-critical. There is a section in Part 3 of his book, “Possible Problems for a Complicity Theory”, which speaks very well for Griffins’ ability to search out the potential flaws in his arguments. If Morrock had simply plagiarized this passage it would have been a far more compelling critique that his own offerring.

I am very disappointed that Skeptic Magazine does not do a better job examining such an important controversy.