It is easy to agree on Tower 7, absolutely. We can see the detonations. The twin towers are trivial to debunk. I have now had this specific conversation about the twin towers about 15 times or so and every time we get to this point everyone always says what you just said which is "they were over built". I understand where you are coming from and I understand why people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around the obvious explanation that I believe to be correct. The reason for that is I cannot find the link to the video of the people putting load bearing steel beems on simple wooden fires and having them turn into u beams under their own weight. I would need to couple that video with another video of temperature readings not just of a stoked wooden fire but live forest wildfires. It took me a long time to wrap my head around the fact that cellulose burns at up to 1000c. Once I saw the video demonstrations of those two things, the rest was easy to explain. Here is my take on the position that "the twin towers were built to withstand airplaine impact". Here are a few of the problems with that. The tower were finished in 1971 and started in 1964. That means, in order for the developer to have secured the land and commissioned the design the actual work on the buildings would have been in the late 50s. that would have been a bit over 10 years after the war ended. This means a whole lot of things: * 757s did not exist in those days. They did not build them to withstand what we think of planes, the were built for what people in the 50s thought of as planes. * Math. Sliderules. When we talk about design today, we are NOT talking about the same thing as design in the 50s. Yes the SR71 was built with slide rules sure. This was a commercial project that had to be done on time, land had to be secured, approved and financed, materials sourced and so forth. When someone says they calculated the sheer forces based on known math and known research about stresses and strains of complex systems based on 50s knowledge of all of those domains using slide rules and a budget to meet I know they don't know the limitations of those kinds of jobs. They did the calculations, but they were best guess scenarios, if that. On paper. * You cannot design for building being hit by airlines. This just isn't a thing and for sure was not a thing in the 50s. Today we have computers and we can model expected performance of complex systems in a crash scenario, but you know what? No one JUST MODELS car crashes. You crash cars AFTER you have done stress modeling in the design studio because real world performace does NOT match your predictions. There are a lot of reasons why real world peformance does not match modeling even in modern times. One of them is math vs real world, real world is way more complex. Another is materials, knowledge of materials and the expectation that the supplier of the materials has PERFECT QUALITY CONTROL guaranteeing no imperfections or other performance issues of materials. The other reason is manufacturing. Even the best welders and craftsmen make errors and mistakes, manufacturing isn't a process of perfect repetition it is a process of statistcal probability of minimizing issues during each repetition. There are entire fields of study dedicated to statistical quality control. That is in todays terms. Now, turn back the clock to the 50s. They had none of this knowledge and technology at the levels of resolution that we have now. Now add to the situation that you can design your complex system for a plane crash, but unless you do crash testing of real airliners into real buildings, all you are doing is giving us a best guess based on a best set of assumptions available toyou in the 50s. This single item alone destroys the idea that those buildings were designed to withstand plane hits, it's pure nonsense if you know a little bit about the fields involved. * Let's add to that the building were fucking huge. So huge most people cannot really visualize it because they are used to imagining 30 to 40 story sky scrapers which are what we are surrounded by. The twin towers were 95 stories tall and 1 block wide and deep. This means that the 50% lead bearing beams left over had to support 20!!! to 30!!! stories of concrete above them. Basically the load bearing beams had to support a medium to full sized modern 30 or 40 story skyscraper if they were flattened out into a block wide and deep. I am very certain that there is NO WAY that anyone could design a building in a way where 50% of its load bearing steel beams get blown out while a 1000c fire rages for hours to weaken the rest of the steel beams that have to be able to support the superstructure weight above them of at least a 20 to 30 story modern skyscrapers worth of mass. This simply isn't a thing. You cannot design for that. This is a ludicrous idea. * Modeling - I mentioned this above, pulling it out once again just to emphasize the point that in the 50s they did not have any technology capable of modeling stresses and strains of what it would mean for a 757 to hit one of those towers head one. This is really important. You cannot model that on paper, it simply isn't a thing. You can do some rudimentary calculations, sure, but you aren't modeling that in any possible way. This was one of the most powerful computers in the 50s: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/norc.html#:~:text=IBM's%20Naval%20Ordnance%20Research%20Calculator,remained%20in%20service%20until%201968. * Marketing and Bullshit - Here is the thing that is REALLY important to remember. People use the word developer for the people making those building. A better term is sales person. Keep in mind these details: Today we still don't regularly build 95 story buildings because the cost of building them above 40 stories grows geometrically with each floor above that, yet these buildings designed in the 50s were twice the size of our largest average sky scraper in our cities today and twice as wide and twice as long if not more. From the perspective of the 50s, the people that built the towers had to gin up the bullshit because they had to figure out how to make something that expensive be profitable. This means marketing, sales and any and all bullshit you can think of. If a sales person markets their building as being designed to withstand a plane hit, that doesn't mean what it means. First, the marketing brochures NEVER SAID what kind of plane it was designed to withstand. Second they never said at what speed, because it isn't the size of the object that matters in a crass it is the mass and that is proportional in impact effect relative its speed. Third, even if it was designed to withstand a plane hit, what does it mean to withstand a hit? Stay up forever? Stay up for a week? Stay up for a few hours? Most people dont understand that when engineers and marketing people get together and give you bullshit stats like "it can withstand a plane hit" they are gambling on the fact that most people don't understand what and how tolerances are used to define the meaning of terms. It is ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE that what they meant by surviving a plane hit is that they would stay up for a few hours just long enough for everyone to safely get out. And, technically, the buildings did actually survive two absolutely massive hits from modern airliners powered by modern jet propulsion flying at modern speeds for hours and hours. Technically, even if we say you are correct that they were built like tanks so over built that they would survive impact, my additional explanation of all of the variables would still be correct because the towers DID survive the impacts. For at least 4 hours or so. * Novel Donut Design - Here is the other one that people don't fully appreciate. These were novel building designs in a donut shape. You know the outside steel beams that most people think is just cladding? Those were the actual load bearing beams that held up 60% of the buildings weight. The only other steel beams were in the inner core that held up about 40% of the weight. These buildings had no lattice like distribution of steel beams, they were an entirely novel design never before used which increases all sorts of risk from an engineering perspective but I don't think they have been used since. Everyone keeps on saying that no one has ever seen another building pancake. Yeah, that is true. But, we aren't comparing the same things. All other buildings under similar system stress have completely different layout of the load bearing steel beems, usually in in a lattice style design. You can try to compare things that are not the same, but the reality is that anyone that has any experience with complex systems KNOWS the point I am making here. The point is that it is difficult enough to figure out how a complex system will behave in unusual situations, it is impossible to compare two completely different complex systems and get some sort of rational comparative analysis that is worth anything. This is the nature of complex systems. Everyone in IT and other engineering fields knows this. * Cutting Corners - The other thing to keep in mind is that people look at buildings and think that because they are standing that everything is in perfect order. This isn't so. Buildings move and sway and are designed to do so. Anything moving and swaying will have dynamic load stress that, while you can calculate for that, can sometimes exacerbate unseen problems. One of those is just vendors and suppliers cutting corners. This happens ALL the time everywhere. We have no way to tell whether or to what degree this may have contributed as well. * Evidence: They said it could withstand plane impacts. The evidence CLEARLY shows they were lying. If you read this far, congrats! This is one of those puzzles that I really love. I keep on seeing the same old trite simplistic analysis of the situation and people get so wrapped up in their own narratives that I find it fascinating problem to think about. The most interesting part of everything I wrote here is that in 20 years, I have not seen one skeptic mention any of these possible ways of analyzing the particular situation. If someone were to go through the above list and say for each one why it isn't an issue or why that particular point is wrong THEN we are starting to have a real conversation about the twin towers. It is obvious that the twin towers fell in on the selves. There were no obvious squibs going off like in tower 7 first. Second, there is no need to imagine a bunch of jews installing nano thermite in the twin towers to take them down because the goal of the conspiracy is the same if they come down or if they stay up. That was an attack on American soil, it was designed by the key us governement agencies and its internal and external allies as a false flag operation in order to get the population into alliance with leadership and justify all of the expeditions into the middle east as a result. This would have happened whether or not the twin towers came done, there was no need to take on ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL RISK of installing nano thermite charges and then something going wrong in such a chaotic situation and being found out. My contention is that the twin towers came down under their own weight. Sorry, this one is too much fun to debunk because it is so easy to debunk.