Apparently so...

Ok then, would you mind posting the actual science used to determine that the Twin Towers couldn't collapse due to the set of conditions on 9/11?

If you say that what the N.I.S.T. determined was "scientifically impossible," then you (or someone else) must have done actual science, no?

And, of course, the numerous fire fighters and station chief would be included with that "someone else" group.

(Actually, the fires alone didn't force the collapse of Twin Towers. It was a combination of factors-including the fires-that caused the Twin Towers to collapse.)

Ummmm...weren't we talking about a supposed conspiracy concerning why the Twin Towers collapsed rather than the 9/11 event as a whole?

I guess you simply choose to be obtuse...and/or sarcastic.

And by what means did you reach this conclusion?

(I'm a mechanical engineer, so I really don't mind listening to the details. In fact, I honestly look foward to hearing them. )

Well, if you ask me, all it takes is one person with the more purely objective evidence in order to "prove" this supposed conspiracy is true.

(Just ask Einstein how that works, if you know what I mean.)

And, being a mechanical engineer, and knowing what I know, I have no problem accepting the final N.I.S.T. report as being the truth.

And no, I don't necessarily trust the government concerning everything they say. But this occasional lack of trust doesn't stop me from looking at what they say on a case-by-base basis. And, in this case, I believe the N.I.S.T.

I find it interesting, Tadpole, that you didn't have a single word to say about that buckling that was noticed at World Trade Center 1 a little over 5 minutes before she collapsed.

Why not?

Here, I'll post it again for your convenience:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

"(As a side note, take a look at the photo on page 33 in the report linked above. Take notice of the significant buckling that was occuring in the southeast corner of World Trade Center 1. This photo was taken by the NYC police department at 10:23 AM. And the building began its downward motion at 10:28:22 AM. So, at least 5 minutes had transpired after this buckling was noticed before this building came down. If the World Trade Center 1 building was really brought down entirely by some other means at a much closer time to 10:28:22 AM, then how do you explain this buckling...especially at that earlier time?

Mind you, once a column starts to buckle, this means that this structural member has effectively exceeded its "maximum yield stress" and, in fact, the material that comprises it has become "plastic"...meaning that it will remain permanently deformed even if the load on it were to be removed. And, in addition, this permanent deformation means that that column can no longer support the downward load that is applied to it since it will continue to deform under that load if there is no bracing in the horizontal direction in order to prevented it from buckling further. In other words, World Trade Center 1 essentially began to collapse at least by 10:23 AM...which is several minutes before any supposed explosives were used to "demolish" the building.)"