I'm with Dan on this one (!). That a fully-loaded 737 can cause, after
impact, buildings to fall down is not even remotely shocking.
This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football
field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the
math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs
myself about four years ago). What's amazing, in this light, is that
the buildings didn't fall before they did.
As to the "thermate" idea: Sorry. Bullshit. If there were explosives in
the WTC, they were probably there illicitly, not planted as part of a
larger plot. Recall these were buildings housing hundreds of
businesses, not all of them necessarily wholly legit. (And, frankly,
the words of "a BYU scientist" are not enough to sway me. It was "a BYU
scientist" who claimed cold fusion was a reality back in the 80s.)
And even if there were explosives strapped to the structure, so what?
All that would show is that the conspiracy *among the Islamic
fundamentalists* was well-developed, to the point they were willing to
plant charges to ensure destruction. We knew they were well-coordinated
already. So what's the rhetorical point?
(Sorry, Rob.)
On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
There is some interesting discussion in the comment section.
It pretty much all sounds like conspiracy-talk, but then it has always
been my opinion that there was something not quite right with the
"official" explanations.
I'm not quite sure why you say that. The official explanation is
pretty
simple: planes fly into buildings....damages buildings....fire weakens
steel
to the point where the remaining columns give way, buildings go boom.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
<http://books.nightwares.com/>
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
<http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf>
<http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf>
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
