----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:17 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
[Snip a godawful amount of quoted text] > All of this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what I see on > the > videos of the collapse. Well of course it does Dan. The explanations these gentlemen give are tailored to explain what was seen in the evidence, what they don't do is eliminate alternate explanations and that is the item that I would like to see. I would even trust your judgement of such an endevour, but such has not been undertaken or even really been officially commented on. (At least I have not become aware of it and that is also within the realms of possibility<G>) >It seems that you are very skeptical about the > analysis that was done. I'm trying to find out why you think these > guys are > wrong. > It is that it is *an* explanation, but not neccessarily *the* explanation. > > > I'm also trying to understand what you believe might have happened. > I can > think of a couple theoretical possibilities. > > 1) There no hijacked planes. The pictures of the second plane > flying into > the WTC faked were faked. Then the witnesses would have to be faked also, but there are just too many of them for that to be true. > > 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set > off in > the floors that they hit. > Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the "official explanations" precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go. Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say has been "without doubt" eliminated as a possibility. (The point being that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or ignored) As we have previously discussed, my main concern is that all three buildings collapsed fairly well into their basements with about as little collateral damage as could be possible. Why pancaking and not toppling? >From your post: " He noted that videotapes showed some tilting of the top portion of the south tower before it collapsed. 'This indicates the buckling of one building face while the adjacent face was bending.' After that, the upper portions of the tower are shown disintegrating, with 'a dynamic effect and amplification process'" Why was this tilting not "amplified"? It should have been. xponent Always Questions Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
