Unlike BookkLover, who one can tell did not read the article, I think the article is good. Perhaps the biggest limitation looking back on it almost 20 years later is the lack of the opinion of one of the engineers from Mr. Yamasaki's firm. If this was included, there may be a chance that a better understanding of exactly why the building materials discussed in the article were chosen. However, this may be an unpopular opinion, given the fact that some users of this site have absolutely nothing better to do than spout off the ill-informed rhetoric of personalities such as Alex Jones simply because of the opinion that "He's shunned by other people for telling the truth!" Articles such as this one are invaluable in discussing the collapses of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Claiming that this article is disinformation is to sensationalize it, merely because it challenges your preconceived notions over any discussion over the events of 9/11. Furthermore, The article itself agrees with the sentiment that the fires in both towers never got hot enough to burn through the fireproofing material, but because of the design of the towers and the decision to use gypsum fireproofing, the impact of the planes tore down the gypsum from the core area. While we're at it, let's discuss gypsum as well. It's a lightweight material, and like all light weight materials it cannot withstand collisions of objects traveling at hundreds of miles or kilometers per hour.

Another point of contention is that too many read good articles like this, but that reading is very limited. It would appear that at the very point in a work where something does not align with their own notions, people tend to immediately stop reading the rest of the piece and furiously write a negative review. Don't fall into that trap. Also, do not let anyone say to look at WTC7 as the "smoking gun" of an inside job. Building 7 has absolutely nothing to do with how WTC 1 or WTC 2 collapsed or the political decisions that were made during the construction of the site in the 1960s. The article explains those political and engineering decisions, but the "truthers" ignore this. Finally, I would like to remind the "truthers" that WTC 7 was built on top of a Con-Edison electric substation. In order to understand WTC 7's collapse, I suggest researching that fact further.

This article is a good article from 2001 that attempts to explain why the twin towers collapsed- as a direct result of political maneuvering and pushing engineering to the limit. Perhaps the reason why this article would anger someone seeking the truth is because they do not understand how buildings work, nor do they make any effort to learn.

If you believe the disinformation in this book, I sincerely feel sorry for you. I hope you keep searching for the truth -- and a good place to start -- is looking into building number 7.
The other skyscraper that "collapsed" on September 11th.