I believe 9/11 was an inside job now

[FallentoReason]

I also don't know how they would've set the charges. The only thing that definitely gets to me (after a day of thinking about it..) is that WTC 7 collapsed... and in such a "clean" manner as well. The somewhat straightfoward collapse of the tower next to it hardly touched WTC 7, yet it cleanly collapsed in 7 seconds. It doesn't make any rational sense.

From Wikipedia:

On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm.

It's quite laughable to think that the failure of one "critical" column triggered the building into a perfect free-fall collapse. As a civil engineering student, I can guarantee you NO building is desgined with a self destruct button in the form of a "critical beam". That's just ridiculous. You make it so that the building has no way of collapsing even if a few members have failed. Over-compensating is key in civil engineering.

WTC 7 wasn't "hardly touched" by the North Tower. Go to YouTube and search for "debris hitting WTC7", and you'll find plenty of videos of large projectiles falling off the North Tower and hitting WTC7.

The building should have collapsed unevenly - towards the debris-struck side - if that's what caused it to collapse.

I'm not so sure I understand the meaning of the word "clean" you use to describe the collapse. Buildings generally collapse downwards in the manner WTC7 did, just as the North and South towers did. This is due to the fact that the structure holding parts of the building up fails, and once the top of the building starts falling, the rest of it collapses underneath.

Except the bottom gave way and fell evenly at basically a free-falling acceleration. It's quite the miracle for random debris, fire and just the overall uneven damage to do that.

If you were expecting the towers to fall over to one side, or for WTC7 to fall over to one side, then you don't quite understand the mechanics of what went on that day.

Then not only explain the mechanics to me, but the physics of how uneven damage to one side causes the building to free-fall.

---

Rather, the building should have leaned onto the weakened side.

How do you know this? Are you qualified to make this assertion?

I'm only asking, because there are thousands of fire investigators, demolition experts, architects, structural specialists, and engineers who disagree with you.

Engineering/physics 101: columns provide vertical resistance. Half a building giving way means that the structure above the failed columns now begin to accelerate. This however doesn't translate as a horizontal force. The other half of the columns are still supporting the weight above them. The end result is that half the building gives way, and given the benefit of the doubt, the side that is falling might actually pull the other side *horizontally*, hence why I say it should've fallen towards the weakened side.