Liza and Rachel. Here is a petition that was signed by 2,247 Architects and Engineers.
It reads"
"On Behalf of the ]\ple of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7."
You can further your nonsensical arguments with any or all of them. The full list of who, what and where can be found on the link below.
AE911Truth Petition Signers
Let's return to the topic, instead. You've repeatedly changed the goalposts during my tenure in this thread. For that matter, you've yet to respond to the vast majority of my material with anything more than a dismissive wave of your hand. "It sounds too improbable" and "I don't buy it" does nothing to address the very real, very compelling, and very exhaustive material that supports the official analysis and conclusion. As far as the petition you've linked, the controlled demolition hypothesis has been addressed and comprehensively refuted beyond any reasonable doubt. Now, then...
Specialists investigating the collapses almost unanimously disagree that a controlled demolition of any sort is required to understand and reconcile the structural response of the buildings before and during their collapse. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it couldn't ultimately have fallen into the street, because
any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) to collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. There's very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.
Furthermore, controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building. It's important to add that controlled demolitions are traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although exceptions exist. Also, there's little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. And, as another notable point, any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.
At this point, you're starting to bore me. Or I'm starting to bore myself. In any case, and to reiterate yet again, this would really be more entertaining if you were to post an analytically consistent, opposing point of view as opposed to citing a "petition" that doesn't represent more than a tiny minority of qualified specialists, or dismissing my points on the basis of irrelevant "got'cha!" rhetoric that's as thin as a sheet of aluminum foil.
