For those, like Wolfgang, who don't understand science, here's how a scientific inquiry would go...


Question: What happened on 9/11 and during the period leading up to 9/11?

Evidence: Airplanes flew into the Twin Towers. There were fires. The buildings were designed to withstand being hit by airplanes and the resulting fires. The buildings fell.


Hypothesis 1: The fires caused the buildings to fall.

Question 1: Was it possible for fires to cause the buildings to fall?

Question 1b: How would the fires cause the buildings to fall?

Question 2: If it was possible for the fires to cause the buildings to fall, is there evidence that this is what happened?

Question 2b: What is the evidence that fire caused the buildings to fall?

Question 3: Are there any other possible explanations for what caused the buildings to fall other than fire?

Question 3b: If there are any other possible explanations for what caused the buildings to fall, what are they?


Hypothesis 1b: Failure of the angle braces caused the buildings to fall (this hypothesis also presumes that it was fire that caused the buildings to fall).

Question 1: Was it possible for the buildings to fall as a result of the angle braces failing?

Question 1b: If it was possible for the buildings to fall because of a failure of the angle braces, how did this happen?

Question 1c: If it was possible for the buildings to fall because of a failure of the angle braces, what evidence is there that this is what happened?

Question 2: Are there any other possible explanations for how the buildings could have fallen?

Question 2b: If there are any other possible explanations for how the buildings could have fallen, what are they?


Hypothesis 2: The buildings were brought down through the use of controlled demolition.

Question 1: Was it possible for the buildings to have been brought down through the use of controlled demolition?

Question 1b: If it was possible for the buildings to have been brought down through the use of controlled demolition, what are the possible ways this could have been done?

Question 2: Is there any evidence that the buildings were brought down through the use of controlled demolition?

Question 3: Are there any other possible explanations for how the buildings could have fallen, and if so, what are they?


Further questions: Given all of the possible scenarios that could account for the buildings falling, for which scenarios do we have the most evidence?


This is how the scientific method works. If any of the lines of inquiry that are generated by the hypotheses do not lead anywhere, then those lines of inquiry, and the hypotheses they are intended to support, are abandoned. So far, the line if inquiry into how the core structures could have failed has not lead anywhere, either in this thread, or in the official "investigations". So as of now, the hypothesis that it was fire that caused the buildings to fall is not supported by the evidence.