Creative Speculation

> Buildings don't collapse due to fire.

Really? Then why do you suppose fireproofing is required in steel buildings? Hint: It's because your claim above is patently false. No doubt, you've read on "truther" sites about the Windsor Tower (Madrid) fire and the claim that if it didn't collapse after a longer fire, then that implies that the WTC buildings shouldn't have collapsed, either. But the steel part of that building did collapse; the part that didn't collapse was reinforced concrete. In the real world it's well known that fire weakens steel and weakened steel structures can collapse. It's also well known that buildings that differ in construction should also be expected to differ in their reaction to trauma such as plane collisions and fires. Getting all of your information from "truther" propaganda sites puts you at a considerable disadvantage in this discussion, but the point is that your vacuous claims based on nothing but incredulity and lack of understanding is not a "rational reason" for rejecting the simple and obvious explanations for what happened. The NIST theories are based on actual evidence and sound science, which doesn't guarantee that they are 100% "truth" but it does put them in a class far beyond claims that occupied office buildings must have been rigged for controlled demolition because "buildings don't collapse due to fire."

"Truthers" have yet to produce a shred of evidence that can't be explained without resorting to such a ridiculously implausible theory as controlled demolition.

> But you guys even ignore that.

Bullshit. The vulnerability of steel structures to fire is yet another of those things that apparently needs to be pointed out over and over and over as more gullible people swallow what they've been told on "truther" sites and then come here to "inform" us.

> Remember WTC 7. No plane. Just fires on a few floors.

... and a completely different explanation for why it collapsed, requiring only "fires on a few floors."

> So what are those pops many floors below the impact? There aren't any raging fires. And where we do see fire, no windows are popping out.

Assuming you're back to the towers, I gave you a plausible reason: jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. I also gave you some reasons why the "squib" theory makes no sense.

> NIST left out why WTC 7 collapsed so they aren't reliable.

There was a separate report on 7 with a very plausible explanation. Your knowledge seems to be several years out of date.

> Their pancake theory would put 50 stories of debris, with the inside columns standing in the middle. These building were pulverized. ALL 3. Just watch their little cartoon of the building collapsing. The core is still there in their fantasy. But that illustration is fine and dandy with you guys. You guys will do anything to deny that it was an inside job. Even ignoring the lack of 50 story debris and standing cores according to NIST.

Back to the towers, or what? I can't figure out what you're trying to say about "50 stories," but I really can't see any good reason to try to untangle it. The "pancake theory" was early speculation about what initiated the tower collapses, but it was not substantiated by analysis of the design and the evidence. If you want to argue against the NIST theory for the tower collapses, don't expect to be taken seriously if you don't even know what that theory is.

> LOL!

I think I understand the NIST explanations for the collapses fairly well, but I'm willing to listen to any reasoned rebuttals. Apparently, you don't have any. LOL back atcha.

> Oh and explosions were heard outside of the buildings. I remember that one video where the building is starting to collapse, and the reporter says " We just heard a huge explosion, and now the building is collapsing as they ran for their lives.

Again and again: Not everything that sounds like an explosion is an explosion, and not all explosions are caused by high explosives. Please, go find some videos of actual controlled demolitions on YouTube and listen to them, then come back and try to explain why there isn't a single WTC video that sounds anything like that, and why there is no seismic record of any such explosions, either. If you're going to just keep repeating the same claims and ignoring what I'm telling you, then there's no reason to continue this.