Has anyone thought that the geology of the area might have cause collapse?

I'm just curious...the area around WTC was pretty much formica and slightly porous rock. There was a slurry wall holding away the water, which was destroyed during the collapse. The water pressure was only held at bay by the debris and a restraining wall had to be built during debris excavation.

I'm wondering, and please any geologists out there, is there a more logical explanation that controlled demo? Perhaps the impacts caused a more catastrophic geological reaction that brought down WTC 1, 2, and 7? The whole area of Lower Manhattan is not like the rest, it's not full of heavy bedrock, but more porous rock.

Not sure what I believe yet, but I'm a strong believer in constant questioning and re-questioning held hypothesis. So far, I've found very little research into any pre-existing geological conditions for the collapse. I honestly believe that that might be the true answer, but who knows?

Wrong. On several counts.

The area around WTC was fill material. Go find the article I linked to in the "Bridge". That shows what the shoreline of the Hudson River looked like since the original settlers. The river has been pushed back several times, and in fact was pushed back by using the excavation material from the WTC to reclaim additional land.

What you call the slurry wall is generally called the bathtub. A trench was dug in the ground, and slurry pumped in to maintain the shape of the trench. This slurry then had rebar cages inserted in the trench. After that, concrete was pumped in, which replaced the slurry. Bingo, a poured reinforced concrete wall that used the ground as the forms.

The bathtub wall was damaged in several spots, but NOT destroyed. Much concern was had about reinforcing the wall while the recovery work was ongoing. If the wall had failed, the site would have been flooded. No additional wall was built, to my knowledge. The existing wall may have been reinforced, but I'm not aware of that.

And Manhattan is solid bedrock, once you go down far enough.

Some supporting articles
http://travel2.nytimes.com/fodors/top/features/travel/destinations/unitedstates/newyork/newyorkcity/fdrs_feat_111_9.html?n=Top%2FFeatures%2FTravel%2FDestinations%2FUnited+States%2FNew+York%2FNew+York+City
http://www.manhattanusersguide.com/archives_content.php?contentID=020703&category=info
http://www.geotimes.org/nov01/NNwtc.html

Link to this site and find the PDF that includes pictures:
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLJ9?OpenDocument

An interesting idea. I suppose the mechanism would have to be that of
the horizontal impact energy being transmitted to the rock. MIT's
Thomas Eagar described the effect of the impact energy on the tower as
being analogous to "a bullet hitting a tree" because the mass of the WTC
was so much greater than that of the aircraft.

It's well to question everything, especially our own favorite theories.

-- pulverized from the top down, falling straight down.

If it was a foundation thing I would think they would collapse from the bottom, and tip over.

But it's an interesting idea.

HOW could that cause the buildings to start collapsing at or near the top of the building, straight down into their own footprint?