missing twin towers chart card

"[...] Other beliefs are pliable, like the young sapling, ever growing with the upward thrust of life."

 —Sophia Lyon Fahs

Welcome to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's exploration of the plausibility of the official theory's underlying assumption that the high speed impact of large aircraft and the ensuing fires could conceivably cause catastrophic structural damage to the twin towers.

Our findings so far can be fairly summarized as follows:

Now is the time to review the technical assumption, held all along our now-complete demonstration of the demolition's technical plausibility, that the high speed impact of large aircraft and the ensuing fires could indeed conceivably cause catastrophic structural damage to the twin towers.

You are welcome to explore the segment of AE911Truth's online slide show that discusses this particular question, starting here.

The slides in question happen to yield objective evidence that steel-framed high-rises have consistently resisted fires that have dwarfed the twin towers' in scope and duration.

This evidence:

This page concludes the review of the major physical evidence related to the twin towers' destruction. It essentially confirms our findings above.

AE911Truth's next logical step is to look for non-physical evidence that corroborates these findings, starting with the last major piece of technical evidence that is left.

Accordingly, whenever you are comfortable with this page's conclusions, consider pursuing AE911Truth's exploration of the twin towers' destruction by reviewing the official technical reports that blame it on the high speed impact of large aircraft and the ensuing fires. Or click on a specific box or phrase in the block-diagram on top of this page to visit some other aspect of it. Or return to its epistemological question.