On 12/1/06, James Newtons Massmind wrote: > Building 7 acted like a demolished building, not a building on fire. Why > doesn't that bother people? Well, for my part it's due to the fact that it's one sample. Just because it didn't fall the way many people expect it would doesn't mean that that it _couldn't possibly_ fall that way. I still find it less likely that someone engineered the collapse. An engineered collapse doesn't involve only thermite and explosives, it also requires careful cutting of main structural supports. It would take many weeks of careful work to install explosives and cutting fuses as well as de-rating the main supports through small cuts throughout the various buildings. I have a difficult time believing that any evidence exists that such work was done. Even if you leave out cutting the supports you still have weeks of installation of miles of detonation cord, explosives, and thermite. Not to mention that someone somewhere has a purchase order (or is missing) what I imagine amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions) of the materials used. Lastly, it is difficult for me to believe that such a huge cover up was accomplished that not a trace of explosive material, wiring, intentionally cut beams, etc was found or reported by those working the scene. This is not something that I believe hundreds of people who would _have_ to have this knowledge for it to succeed would be able to keep secret. Simply because it has some of the unique characteristics of a controlled demolition doesn't mean that it must have been. It means there remains a possibility that it was, not that it was. So: it doesn't bother me because I remain unconvinced that it is anything other than what it appears to be. I fully support other people putting their time, effort, and money (not my tax dollars) into exploring other options, and I would support freedom of information requests being fulfilled for the various photos and test samples that people are calling for. So far I've only seen theories - on both sides - and my personal Occam's razor says that even with all its problems (and what gov't report doesn't have problems) the report wins out. Digital replicas of materials should be given to whomever requests them (photos, videos, etc). Primary test samples (such as metal beams, portions of molten slag, etc) should only be lent (not given) out to those who have great credentials in the field they intend to test the material in and can back up a good, testable hypothesis. But maybe it's just me choosing to wear rose colored glasses and ignore scary possibilities. For what it's worth, I also think global warming and peak oil are inaccurately portrayed. -Adam - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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