Help me out here - in my comment, did I say Bush was behind it? Did I say Israel was behind it?
Stick to the structural math. The buldings do not fall down. Can you show us any report in history where a burning skyscraper just fall down from a fire, let alone three in one day?
If the towers frame work "pancaked" in collapsing (as shown on tv) it does not account for the complete disintigration of the support columns.
The PM article was beneath the dignity of engineering disciplines as evidenced by it's inability to be honest.
You can not watch the video of #7 going down and say it was so badly damaged that it fell on it's own accord. Of course there is the oft reported analysis that maybe it fell in sympathy with its tower brothers.
Can you show me where any two skyscrapers have been hit with trasncontinental jets carrying a nearly full fuel load?
And why haven't you answered my question anout the firefighters? Either the men of the FDNY (and more than 99% of all firefighters, materials scientists, architects, etc.) disagree with your assessment, or they have been silenced. If it's the latter, please explain how.
If you don't believe Bush or the Israelis were behind it, why do you perpetually link to sites that do?
Do you like swimming in the same pool with Bush-haters, America-haters, and Jew-haters? Seriously.
Stick to the structural math.
Show it to me. I've heard that physics treachers can do math.
The buldings do not fall down.
They sure looked like they were falling down. They didn't fall up.
Can you show us any report in history where a burning skyscraper just fall down from a fire, let alone three in one day?
I reject the premise. No one said the buildings "fell down from a fire", and there aren't many buildings in the world comparable to the WTC towers, none that are exactly like them, and none that sustained the identical damage.
If the towers frame work "pancaked" in collapsing (as shown on tv)
you mean, as happened in real life and captured on TV
it does not account for the complete disintigration of the support columns.
Again, I reject the premise. I never heard anyone say the support columns "disintegrated" even partially, let alone completely. The columns may have failed completely, but that's a whole different matter.
The PM article was beneath the dignity of engineering disciplines as evidenced by it's inability to be honest.
As I have never read the Popular Mechanics article, that is immaterial, particularly to the question I asked. But my husband is an engineer, so I'll ask him to read it and see whether it's beneath the dignity of his discipline.
You can not watch the video of #7 going down and say it was so badly damaged that it fell on it's own accord.
You can't watch the video of #7 going down and conclude anything other than that the building is going down. The video is doo-doo. It is shot from the north, when everything important was happening to the south. The quality is poor. It is also filmed from many blocks away, and shows perhaps the upper third of the building, no more. It may be the only video that exists (it's the only one I've seen), but it's crap and proves nothing except that the building collapsed. And we knew that already.
Of course there is the oft reported analysis that maybe it fell in sympathy with its tower brothers.
Ah yes. I remember you repeating that fairly oft in the past.
So---who or what do YOU think is responsible for 9/11 attacks and the collapse of the three buildings? Now that I know you don't think it's Bush or the Jews, you've got me curious.
Who agrees with you?
the jihadist
I hear a Zot comming...better duck...