New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

[Blanks]

184. OK, so an analysis on an individual column

Because I don't believe that if you took the first floor that failed (directly below the floor that was hit) it would collapse under the weight of the upper floors even weakened by heat.

Additionally, let's suppose that happened on one of the buildings. Both buildings (actually all 3) failed practically identically. Regardless of where the 'fire' was started on the building.

I'm a civil engineer. I don't have a lot of structural experience, but I took all the required fundamental course work which included mechanics of materials, structural analysis and concrete design. I'd like to see some kind of analysis that I can buy into. I watched it collapse on TV and I thought at the time that it was way more likely to slough off to the side than it was to collapse straight down.

...and i mean come on, a building collapsed straight down because some burning debris landed on the roof. If enough people say that they saw a big plane hit the pentagon; I can back off without shame, but they're gonna have to try a little harder on the world trade center before I can buy into it.