What I'm suggesting is that the likelihood that 3 towers fell in perfect symmetrical fashion, 2 of them within 90 minutes of their being hit and a 3rd within 7 hours of the other two being hit is not believable.
complete bullshit - they fell when they fell due to differing damage - nothing "symmetrical" at all about it except your prejudice to reality
IF the towers were going to fall, they would have toppled toward the area they had been weakened. THAT makes sense. THAT is logical.
Totally wrong, your 'logic' is just ignorance of reality - standard construction was not used like in reinforced concrete steel structures - they wouldn't just tip over like your little log cabin building sets
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made.
First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.
Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.
To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Why the pilots didn't follow their standard hijack protocols?
'Standard protocol' for airline hijackings AT THAT TIME was to follow the instructions of the hijackers and land where they were told.
NOT TO SOUND AN ALARM, NOT TO RESIST, NOT TO LOCK THEM OUT, NOT TO FIGHT BACK - that was the policy
until they got their throats cut
Why does the Pentagon have no aerial defense system in place? Why do they not even have cameras?
Of course the military had defenses in place in 2003 - FOR ATTACKS COMING FROM OUTSIDE the US, from off our coasts, over the north pole, from OVERSEAS
Why why why why why - because it has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE
CAMERAS in the sky? WTF? Cameras in fighter jets? WTF?
TOO MANY VIDEO GAMES!
Yes - those terrorists did the unthinkable and pulled it off.
Just accept reality, they did it