On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 14/07/2006, at 11:31 PM, Dave Land wrote:
For me, questions that compare the official report's explanation
of the
attack and its aftermath with the major common elements of the top
couple of conspiracy theories (how is it that WTC 1 & 2 fell at very
near free-fall-in-a-vacuum speeds;
Estimates range from 8.4 to 15+ seconds. That's a huge range, and
if you
take anything in the upper half of that range, it's not even vaguely
"mysterious". And watching it again on some program the other
night, it
definitely wasn't anywhere near the lower estimates.
what _exactly_ was the mechanism by which WTC 7 fell -- a building
which
did _not_ have thousands of gallons of burning Jet-A in it; and so
forth
"Mechanism"? For goodness sake. It had a burning 400+m tower collapse
about a hundred metres away - and WTC6 was destroyed during the
collapse. Surrounding buildings had to be condemned too.
So /you're/ Gautam's liberal-democrat-female friend? Since you presumed
to answer the questions I wrote to Dan for her, you must want us to
think so.
I think we've already heard quite enough from those who have read a
couple of web sites and seen a couple of videos (yes, and in some cases,
posses doctorates in physics and so forth). The purpose of Gautam's kind
offer through Dan was to learn from someone who was not the dilettante
that the rest of us are.
I am not going to debate this with you. I /am/ interested in hearing
the informed conclusions of a person who was on the panel that actually
wrote the report.
Dave
Who Asked You Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
