Reports from FEMA and NIST which attempt to explain how airplane impacts and the subsequent fires brought down the towers on 9/11 suffer from two major flaws. First of all, investigations by government agencies can hardly be considered independent; secondly, both documents attempt to explain the collapses based on the foregone conclusion that the airplanes impacted the towers creating a set of circumstances eventually resulting in their collapse. These reports concede that the collapses were not brought down by the impacts themselves nor the burning jet fuel, but rather by the resultant infernos which were responsible for weakening the structure of the towers causing their demise. Considering the fact that a third tower collapsed that day without suffering any airplane impact or jet fuel fire, the official story DEMANDS that plain old office fires caused the collapses, because if they didn't, the official story falls apart.

This is the second part of an article entitled "Simple Logic Exposes the Truth" that illustrates how logic and common sense can be used to come to reasonable conclusions about what really caused the collapses that day, without having to wade through complicated and often conflicting technical reports from engineers and government talking heads.

Since pundits of the official story like to reference the FEMA and NIST reports as proof positive of the official story, it seemed necessary to write a second part of this article that once again uses simple logic to come to the most reasonable conclusion. Aside from the obvious conflicts of interest these two agencies have in releasing these reports, assumptions made by the authors of these reports ultimately remove any credibility from their conclusions. They have attempted to explain how the collapses happened based on the foregone conclusion that 19 hijackers crashed planes into the buildings causing them to collapse. What if we don't automatically make the assumption that the planes and resultant fires caused the collapses? Lets look at what happened objectively, consider ALL the evidence, and come to the most logical conclusion.

History is a great teacher, so lets look back in time. Has catastrophic damage to any building of any size caused a collapse in the manner we saw on 9/11? Because if something can happen three times in one day, it must be fairly commonplace correct? Physics doesn't behave any differently from one day to the next, something that can happen today, can also happen tomorrow, and could have happened in the past. Something that happened three times in one day has undoubtedly happened before, either something is possible or it isn't.

However, this is not the case. Regardless of what caused the damage, collapses like we saw on 9/11 has never happened before or since 9/11. Everyday, throughout the world, buildings endure damage from hurricanes, missiles, bombs, fires, etc, and they suffer catastrophic damage of some sort, and yet they never react the same way.

Here is what catastrophic damage does to a building:

As for the non-existent infernos that occurred on 9/11, well, here is what happens to buildings that have suffered real infernos:

That argument that the towers were "weak" or uniquely built, therefore causing the collapse, is nonsense as well. WTC7 had a completely different design as the two twins and it suffered the same fate, so that argument is flawed. Furthermore, the two twins suffered a bomb and inferno in the past so history again tells us that neither of these occurrences were capable of causing the collapses.

So, again, looking at it logically, without any preconceived notions of what caused the collapses, it becomes increasingly clear that neither the crashes nor the fires could have been responsible. Again, we want to consider ALL the evidence, not just what we've been told.

First of all, looking back in history, what is the likely cause of the collapses? Controlled demolition of course, that is the only occurrence in the past that has caused building collapses, at freefall speed, into their own footprint, while expelling huge amounts of dust.

We also know that it takes weeks of planning to set the charges up correctly in a building to ensure it falls within its own footprint, collapses such as this don't happen by accident, it takes detailed planning, pouring over blueprints, and the delicate placement and timing of explosives. The same result cannot be achieved three times in one day by random building damage and fires. So, history is telling us that the only way buildings could have collapsed like they did three times on 9/11 was due to controlled demolition.

But again, lets consider ALL of the evidence, is there anything else that supports the theory that controlled demolition brought down the towers? Do we consider the dozens of witnesses, firefighters, and reporters that saw/heard/felt explosions in the buildings that day?

Do we consider the story of William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at the WTC who felt a massive explosion under his feet before the plane hit above him? Someone who risked his life to save others that day, someone that lost close friends that day, and someone who feels so strongly about what happened he is touring the U.S. and abroad telling his story?

Do we consider the fact that firefighters actually made it up to the 78th floor of one of the towers and saw two small pockets of fires that could be put out with two lines?

Do we consider the numerous images of people in the impact area of the towers proving once again that there was no inferno, the fire was not that hot, and the theory that a white hot inferno caused the collapses is further debunked?

Do we consider the strange statement made by Larry Silverstein, the Leaseholder of the WTC, regarding making a decision to "pull" WTC7? Does the fact that Silverstein made billions in insurance payouts make his statements even more suspicious?

Do we consider the fact that the "pancaking collapse" theory directly contradicts the possibility of collapse at free fall speeds? Do we consider the fact that huge dust clouds are the distinguishing factor of controlled demolition? Do we consider the videos and images that appear to show demolition squibs and waves?

So, without making any assumptions or forgone conclusions and based on ALL the evidence, what is the likely cause of the collapses? Based on logic and common sense, what is the most reasonable conclusion? Since 9/11 has been used as the catalyst for two invasions so far, including one that has no end in site, as well as the raping of our basic civil liberties via the Patriot Act, should we not consider ALL the evidence?