I suppose I could point to various websites debunking the conspiracies, and then others would respond with websites debunking the debunkers, ad infinitum. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but since you already have, perhaps you could help me by answering a few questions: If it was physically impossible, then why do some structural engineers claim that it is plausible for the collapse to happen due to gravity? You state in the subject that physics itself denies the possibility, yet there seem to be some dissension among those that study physics. Perhaps someone has a list of those that support one theory, and those that support another theory, along with the credentials of each. I'm in much the same boat as David. I find it much less likely that such a plan could have been carried out than I find it to believe that the building fell due to gravity. Oh, and I love the statements to the effect that since a building built like this has never before fallen like this, then it _must_ be impossible. What a joke! I do appreciate the solid physics analysis, though. Very interesting. What's the half life of a nearly political thread, again? -Adam On 12/1/06, James Newtons Massmind wrote: > Sonoma State University's "Project Censored" has an EXECELLET summary of > what is wrong with the official 9/11 WTC reports. The wild conspiracy > theories do a lot of damage to the credibility of people who question the > official findings, but this write-up, summarizing a Brigham Young University > physics professor, points out the specific physical issues that don't make > sense. > > http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#18 > > E.g. ok, the towers had only a steel exoskeleton and perhaps that melted > enough for them to collapse, (perfectly straight down) but how did the fully > steel framed Building 7 fall in 6.6 seconds after NOT being hit by ANYTHING? > > > If the fire in that building caused one part of the steel to fail, at best > one floor would have collapsed on to the next. The impact of that floor on > the next would, must, slow the fall. You can clearly see this effect as the > twin towers collapse. > > Yet an object dropped from a 7 story building will hit the ground in 6 > seconds. So are we saying that each of the 7 floors, hitting the floor next > to it, only slowed the fall by .6 seconds? That is patently impossible. > > The only thing that accounts for that building hitting the ground in 6.6 > seconds is demolition charges being set to cut apart each of the steel beams > on ALL the floors at the same time as is commonly done in controlled > building demolition. The owner of the WTC center is on video saying that the > fire department "pulled" building 7 because it could not fight the fire in > it. He later recanted that testimony. > > If it was demo'd, how could the charges have been set from inside the > building, on every beam, on every floor, during a raging fire? > > The only explanation is that building 7 was rigged for demolition PRIOR to > 9/11. > > WTC 7 housed offices of the U.S. Secret Service, the Department of Defense, > the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange > Commission, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue > Service Regional Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of the > records from the Enron accounting scandal were destroyed when the building > came down. > > The official findings of the 9/11 commission address building 7 only by > saying that they have no idea what happened to it. > > And yet, during all the massive media coverage of 9/11, Building 7 was > mentioned only in passing. The repeated attempts to raise these questions > has resulted in no reasonable response from any supporters of the official > record. > > But the 9/11 "attack" did move the nation to support the invasion of Iraq by > the USA, preventing Iraq from effectively selling oil below OPEC rates to > European countries and, of course, precipitating the subsequent Halliburton > profits. > > http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#17 "Iraq Invasion > Promotes OPEC Agenda" > http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war4oil.htm > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml > "Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain" > http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/911profit.htm "Someone sold short > on the 9/11 airlines" > > "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the > leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple > matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist > dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no > voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This > is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and > denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to > danger. It works the same in every country" > -- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal at Nuremburg after WWII. > http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war-machine.htm > > Now, everything in this email is a verifiable, unarguable fact. The > conclusions drawn are obvious (to me) based on the data presented, and I > admit that I pulled in only select data, but I will be happy to recant them > in the face of some new data to the contrary. Therefore, this is not a > religious or a political post. > > --- > James. > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/ Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist