The Physics Community Is A Historical Laughing Stock

I may be extrememly socially retarded but I'm not stupid --
this is a *classic* analysis of Muslim Fisiks,
which also tend to be hardcore examples of it.

the real question is,
Why should Earth's tallest, rather highly tensile structure not
collapse
at the speed of freefall?

I said, Why not?

anyway, there's a good analysis of the comparison
between a surreptitious bombing, and
an inside controlled demo, in the current issue of that MIT mag
-- *Technology & Innovation*, or some thing --
using the Murrah Building for the example.

still, it is high time to impeach Trickier Dick Cheeny,
who did *what* in the Nixon Administration with Don Rumfseld?... oh,
you were convinced by that braindead guy, that he did it?

An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

hmm... you're right.. and how could've them arabs snuck in and put all
those explosives in there anyways?

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

That only admits an obvious New York City insurance scam.
Since the firefighters were right, that the small fires in WTC7
would not collapse anythnng all, even if left to burn
for another day or two.
Not free fall, or any other fall.


The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

The kind of free-fall suggested by the US Govnerment Physicist
retards only suggests that the ****ing fag tards should
stick to Billl Clinton San Franciso physics,, and leave the
stuff that goes faster than golf balls to be people
with Rockets, rather than The Israeli New Pork Times
McDonald's morons from NIST.









Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

In article .com,
"Schoenfeld" wrote:

Spoonfed wrote:
tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

If legitimate, I think this video makes it pretty clear that the
building was indeed pulled.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28412411043437

Since all of the surrounding buildings had been evacuated, a rush job
must have been performed to demolish the building. The rubble from
this demolition covered a fairly large area, which would not be the
case in the sort of controlled explosion that requires weeks to set up
and perform.

Schoenfeld still hasn't given any reference to official documentation
that says that WTC 7 wasn't pulled. All he has said is that it was
left out of the FEMA report. An absence which probably indicates that
FEMA knew the WTC 7 building had been intentionally demolished to save
the surrounding area.

FEMA made these findings:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening
caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in
WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
analyses are needed to resolve this issue." (Chapter 5, pg 31.)

On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released, but made no
mention of 7.


Schoenfeld also suggests that the fire in WTC really wasn't so bad, and
shouldn't have been demolished, except that Silverstein stood to gain
huge insurance settlement, as Silverstein had insurance against acts of
terrorism, which would seem odd except that the World Trade Center was
attacked by terrorists many years previously.

No, silverstein got the lease a couple of months before 9/11..

According to a cnn internet poll, over 90% of the US population also
agree / or partially agree with this stuff.. You guys are in the
minority..

Heck, half the public believe in creationism. I wouldn't cite public opinion
to prove your case.

Schoenfeld wrote:
Spoonfed wrote:
tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

If legitimate, I think this video makes it pretty clear that the
building was indeed pulled.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28412411043437

Since all of the surrounding buildings had been evacuated, a rush job
must have been performed to demolish the building. The rubble from
this demolition covered a fairly large area, which would not be the
case in the sort of controlled explosion that requires weeks to set up
and perform.

Schoenfeld still hasn't given any reference to official documentation
that says that WTC 7 wasn't pulled. All he has said is that it was
left out of the FEMA report. An absence which probably indicates that
FEMA knew the WTC 7 building had been intentionally demolished to save
the surrounding area.

FEMA made these findings:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening
caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in
WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
analyses are needed to resolve this issue." (Chapter 5, pg 31.)


Well, that must be very embarrassing for the writers of the FEMA
report. It looks as though they needed a lot of further investigation,
such as asking somebody that knew.


On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released, but made no
mention of 7.


Unfortunately, people would rather brush their mistakes under the rug
rather than just saying "Oh, I goofed."


Schoenfeld also suggests that the fire in WTC really wasn't so bad, and
shouldn't have been demolished, except that Silverstein stood to gain
huge insurance settlement, as Silverstein had insurance against acts of
terrorism, which would seem odd except that the World Trade Center was
attacked by terrorists many years previously.

No, silverstein got the lease a couple of months before 9/11..


This sounds suspicious at first, but I would rate it as a very high
level of probability that Silverstein had heard from somebody in the
FBI or through the grapevine that Bin Laden was determined to attack in
the United States, as the World Trade Center is specifically mentioned
in the document:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ and under such
circumstances, it would be stupid NOT to take out an insurance policy
against terrorism.

According to a cnn internet poll, over 90% of the US population also
agree / or partially agree with this stuff.. You guys are in the
minority..


I don't think you'll find many regular posters here who are flocking to
be counted among the majority. Nor will you find a lot of people who
are impressed by the statistical viability of internet polls.

But if you are, (and off the subject) notice that "Relativity
Visualized" has a five star rating from readers on Amazon.com, whereas
it is not among the recommended reading list on the Relativity FAQ.
Nor, for that matter, is any book by A. E. Milne. Both are dismissed
as crackpottery by "these guys" because both reject Einstein's
assumption of homogeneity of matter in the universe, and come to a very
simple cosmological model that doesn't require a PhD in Riemannian
geometry to understand.

Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories


If it is true that , "World Trade Center disaster investigators are
refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin
Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers" that
is a very troubling report. In fact it seems that since the NIST
report was able to determine the exact causes of the destruction, and
they had 24 million dollars to spend in the investigation, some part of
that could have been used to produce a computer simulation. It is a
reasonable layperson attitude that "there could be any number of
reasons for the towers to go down" but in fact, it did not happen in
"any number of ways," of course. It happened in one way. With the
data available, it seems like it should be possible to reconstruct
almost exactly what happened.

Considering that no simulations were developed, it seems reasonable to
ask how long the investigation lasted, how many people were on the
investigation team, and exactly how was the 24 million dollars
distributed among them. And do these people take pride in their
ability to provide for their family while managing a challenging
career? And was their Christmas Bonus determined by speed and
efficiency? I'm just curious, because 24 million dollars is enough to
pay 480 people a middle class salary for a year, but what we get is
consultation with 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector
experts, a few photos and a paper document. Were these consultants
paid a hundred-thousand dollars each? I shouldn't speculate, but I
think it is always a good rule-of-thumb in any investigation to follow
the money.




But if I were an exhausted fire-fighter with injured people all around,
and I knew that even a fraction of an unoccupied forty-seven story
building were on fire, looming over a few salvageable buildings, I
would probably make the same decision to ask that it be demolished.

I rememberd the name of the magazine,
with the totally-apt one-sentence comparison
between controlled & uncontrolled (my sic, or "sik") demolition:
the current *Innovation and Technology*, which I think is published
by MIT, on the remains of the Murrah Federal Building.

if you can deflect that from your theory,
you can conspire any thing!

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening
caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in
WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
analyses are needed to resolve this issue." (Chapter 5, pg 31.)

On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released, but made no
mention of 7.

No, silverstein got the lease a couple of months before 9/11..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

with teh M-set, you've found a new field,
"squaring the cardioid," although it must be said that
the M-set is *entirely* an artifact of the floatingpoint spec, and
its many, many implimentations in hardware & software
(it's IEEE-755, or some thing, with a more recent update);
this was confirmed when monsieur M. begged my question
about this, at a rather dull "general audience" talk
that he gave at Royce Hall, UCLA, some time ago.

others have tried this, called Quadray for a spatial/tetrahedral one,
and
it doesn't seem to offer any utility, although it's possible that
some interesting numbertheory could lurk therein (whereas,
the quadray folks were rather more utilitatrian, seeking only
to establish "Synergetics" as better than "cartesianism,"
with no really interesting result -- and
when they both largely suck).

"spacetime" is a hopelessly useless abstraction,
since it was really already highly formalized
as phase-spatialization, using hamiltonians & lagrangians;
unfortunately, it tends to give the "time travel" crowd a funny
platform,
like time is "going to go" some where, some how. well,
"there's no where, therein," thanks to a momentary lapse
by AE's teacher, Minkowski -- good N-d numbertheorist,
as far as you could go with it!

http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html

There is no other math that will follow the algebraic properties in any
dimension for general product and sum so the interest to mathematicians
is obvious from the start. The fact that they generalize between the
real and complex numbers and provide congruency with spacetime via a
natural progression should also be of interest.

But if magnitude is refuted as built from the reals one of these claims
has to go away. It's obvious to me that magnitude is more fundamental.
For modern mathematicians is this a problem? That is what I am trying
to address and the only way I can see is a yes/no answer. We build
mathematics from simple constructs upward to more complicated ones, not
the other way around. Yet this is problematic isn't it? Otherwise I'd
get more solid answers. The vacancy of input from others is meaningful.
How much energy to spend here is not clear to me. This is the bowels of
math, where the real numbers have six unique definitions on Wikepedia
alone. That others who have done the reading you suggest are not able
to answer clearly suggests that I am free to proceed without too much
worry. Still, this means that I am making another definition of the
real numbers based on magnitude. The value of this definition is that
the complex numbers can be arrived at very shortly thereafter, as well
as other interesting higher dimensional systems, as well as a
definition of zero-dimensional numbers. Dimension is generated via a
new approach.

thus:
speaking of Kyoto,
there is an almost historical article on the emmissions trading schemes
of yore & today, in yesterday's NYTMagazine,
via its billionaire proponent from the junkbond biz. only thing
missing:
how many billions of dollars per year is CCX hedging, and
has it ever had any effect on, like, the price of oil?

apt phraseology, "in sympathy," compared
to the typical Muslim Fisikist hypothesis that
there is no essential connection between the buildings
on the site -- when there are very many.

the simplest one is that there is a *huge* concourse
running under the site, containing a subway, parking,
malls, utilities etc., into which the towers collapsed.

WTC7 seems to be forgotten here.

thus:
what Miss Manners or Wikipedia Authority enshrines that,
that one should not stick one's reply at the beginning?...
assuming adequate referential skills, on both sides of the screen,
doesn't it save one from some repeatative strange injury?

thus:
Pierre Duh, that's what our Muslim Fisikist, Schonfeld,
is trying to say:
that the biggest bombs ever to have hit the biggest buildings,
could not have resulted in such a "free fall" collapse, although
that's just a fisikal hypothesis.

thus:
I may be extrememly socially retarded but I'm not stupid --
this is a *classic* analysis of Muslim Fisiks,
which also tend to be hardcore examples of it....
the real question is,
Why should Earth's tallest, rather highly tensile structure not
collapse
at the speed of freefall?...
I said, Why not?...
anyway, there's a good analysis of the comparison
between a surreptitious bombing, and
an inside controlled demo, in the current issue of that MIT mag
-- *Technology & Innovation*, or some thing --
using the Murrah Building for the example....
still, it is high time to impeach Trickier Dick Cheeny,
who did *what* in the Nixon Administration with Don Rumfseld?... oh,
you were convinced by that braindead guy, that he did it?

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

see, you're begging the question;
what is the "normal" rate of collapse
of a building, controlled or surreptitious?

you probably believe in "global" warming,
just because Al Gore invented it ... and
it might get the DNC to run the creep,
sine they gutted the Voting Rights Act on March 27, 2000,
thanks to the God-am Supreme Court's refusal
to hear an appeal.... ah; what case was that?

The kind of free-fall suggested by the US Govnerment Physicist

thus:
speaking of Kyoto,
there is an almost historical article on the emmissions trading schemes
of yore & today, in yesterday's NYTMagazine,
via its billionaire proponent from the junkbond biz. only thing
missing:
how many billions of dollars per year is CCX hedging, and
has it ever had any effect on, like, the price of oil?

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article .com,
"Schoenfeld" wrote:

Spoonfed wrote:
tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

If legitimate, I think this video makes it pretty clear that the
building was indeed pulled.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28412411043437

Since all of the surrounding buildings had been evacuated, a rush job
must have been performed to demolish the building. The rubble from
this demolition covered a fairly large area, which would not be the
case in the sort of controlled explosion that requires weeks to set up
and perform.

Schoenfeld still hasn't given any reference to official documentation
that says that WTC 7 wasn't pulled. All he has said is that it was
left out of the FEMA report. An absence which probably indicates that
FEMA knew the WTC 7 building had been intentionally demolished to save
the surrounding area.

FEMA made these findings:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening
caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in
WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
analyses are needed to resolve this issue." (Chapter 5, pg 31.)

On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released, but made no
mention of 7.


Schoenfeld also suggests that the fire in WTC really wasn't so bad, and
shouldn't have been demolished, except that Silverstein stood to gain
huge insurance settlement, as Silverstein had insurance against acts of
terrorism, which would seem odd except that the World Trade Center was
attacked by terrorists many years previously.

No, silverstein got the lease a couple of months before 9/11..

According to a cnn internet poll, over 90% of the US population also
agree / or partially agree with this stuff.. You guys are in the
minority..

Heck, half the public believe in creationism. I wouldn't cite public opinion
to prove your case.

As you've seen, trying to convince those who claim to be objective -
physicists/engineers/etc - with physics evidence is not going to work.
Why? These people rarely consider evidence that exceeds the boundaries
of their pre-conceived notions. Since they usually cower to the opinion
of their peers, or the many, there is more chance to convince them by
citing social opinion than real hard facts. This is the way science is
conducted in Academia.

How about one of G.W Bush's own cabinet members admitting it?

Morgan Reynolds, a former chief economist in the administration of
George W. Bush's who calls the government story "bogus" and saying the
WTC towers most likely fell from a controlled demolition, not going to
do the trick, what will?

How about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researc...ring_Committee

Schoenfeld wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article .com,
"Schoenfeld" wrote:

Spoonfed wrote:
tadchem wrote:
An admission of the decision to "pull" the firefighters from the
building does not amount to a "demolition" of the building.

The kind of controlled implosion suggested by the paranoiacs requires
weeks to set up and perform, not hours, unless you got a little help
from a native Kryptonian.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

If legitimate, I think this video makes it pretty clear that the
building was indeed pulled.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28412411043437

Since all of the surrounding buildings had been evacuated, a rush job
must have been performed to demolish the building. The rubble from
this demolition covered a fairly large area, which would not be the
case in the sort of controlled explosion that requires weeks to set up
and perform.

Schoenfeld still hasn't given any reference to official documentation
that says that WTC 7 wasn't pulled. All he has said is that it was
left out of the FEMA report. An absence which probably indicates that
FEMA knew the WTC 7 building had been intentionally demolished to save
the surrounding area.

FEMA made these findings:

"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening
caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in
WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained
massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low
probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and
analyses are needed to resolve this issue." (Chapter 5, pg 31.)

On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released, but made no
mention of 7.


Schoenfeld also suggests that the fire in WTC really wasn't so bad, and
shouldn't have been demolished, except that Silverstein stood to gain
huge insurance settlement, as Silverstein had insurance against acts of
terrorism, which would seem odd except that the World Trade Center was
attacked by terrorists many years previously.

No, silverstein got the lease a couple of months before 9/11..

According to a cnn internet poll, over 90% of the US population also
agree / or partially agree with this stuff.. You guys are in the
minority..

Heck, half the public believe in creationism. I wouldn't cite public opinion
to prove your case.

As you've seen, trying to convince those who claim to be objective -
physicists/engineers/etc - with physics evidence is not going to work.
Why?

I haven't seen that. The physics evidence you have cited was about
WTC-7. The official story now seems to be that WTC-7 was intentionally
demolished. Your physics evidence is fine, though without some
expertise in demolitions, I doubt many people would be entirely
convinced either way. And I can understand your frustration that this
interesting detail has not been in the news to my knowledge. I think
that reporting such a detail would lead to more questions.

And those questions, if they lead to where it looks like their going,
lead to an extremely powerful, well armed, entrenched, and completely
unscrupulous body of power, who would have very little difficulty
getting you fired or murdering you or your family in your sleep.
Because of the extraordinary nature of the threat, and our impotence in
the face of it, it is very difficult to even toy with the idea.
Personally I don't WANT to think about it It makes me feel ill. The
obvious threat is enough to keep people from even momentarily giving
the idea consideration. It keeps the media from saying anything, and
even going so far as to riducule anyone who brings up good questions.

It's sort of a Pascal's Wager, in reverse. If you don't believe it,
you're pretty safe, even if you're wrong. If you do believe it, and
you try to do something about it, and you're right, then you will
either be publicly riduculed and ignored by the media, or if you get
too close, you may suffer an unfortunate accident. If you're wrong,
you'll still be ridiculed and ignored. So it's much safer to simply
believe all is well... or even if you don't, pretend, for the sake of
survival.

So no, I can't blame people for not pressing to have these questions
answered, or for stretching logic beyond the snapping point in order to
convince themselves that there is a rational innocent explanation of
their leaders' complacency, incompetence and/or involvement. For all I
know, there may be rational innocent explanations. But instead of
getting them, you get persecution. In the case of your repeated
arguments on WTC-7 it is well deserved, but many of the outstanding
allegations and questions seem to have been left open.

These people rarely consider evidence that exceeds the boundaries
of their pre-conceived notions. Since they usually cower to the opinion
of their peers, or the many, there is more chance to convince them by
citing social opinion than real hard facts. This is the way science is
conducted in Academia.


I am certain that social opinion on the WTC towers 1 and 2 is that the
towers collapsed due to the damage of the planes and the fuel within
them. And I think that public opinion (the 90% that you cited) about
WTC-7 is determined mostly by the fact that the story matches very well
with observation--that it was deliberately demolished. Apparently 10%
still didn't believe it had been, after seeing or hearing an interview
with the owner of the building who said he ordered the demolition.
Unfortunately your physics argument is not nearly as convincing as the
interview with the owner.

In fact, it kind of weakens any argument that you might make about
towers 1 and 2 because your focus on WTC-7 makes it look like you are
avoiding them. If 1 and 2 were collapsed intentionally, it would be
counter to official report. So, why are you NOT focused on performing
the analysis on these buildings? Is it because such analysis leads to
the conclusion that they were indeed collapsed by the damage from the
planes and the fire from the fuel?

This strikes me as somewhat dishonest to focus attention on an
uncontested cause as though it were contested. Since I don't actually
want to believe that Towers 1 and 2 were intentionally demolished, and
you appear to be dishonest, this gives me reason enough to discontinue
pursuit of this conspiracy.

However, I can sympathize that you may actually be frustrated at your
lack of data and resources to attack the more difficult problems of
Towers 1 and 2, and pursuing tower 7 because it's all you've got
available. In which case, I have no idea what to tell you.


How about one of G.W Bush's own cabinet members admitting it?

Morgan Reynolds, a former chief economist in the administration of
George W. Bush's who calls the government story "bogus" and saying the
WTC towers most likely fell from a controlled demolition, not going to
do the trick, what will?


The main difficulty with what you are saying is that it is probably the
scariest thing it is possible to imagine. You have a power that can
wipe out three thousand people at a whim without recrimination, and a
national press who will persecute anyone who asks for explanations. We
have apparently nothing to lose by ignoring the questions, or by
ridiculing the questioner. On the other hand, pursuing the question
could lead to ridicule if it turns out to be nothing, or much worse if
it really is a conspiracy.

Are you asking me? I actually have an idea, but you may think I am
loony.

One could argue that in Revelations, the number 666 as Paul conceived
it, is a number that represents the emotion of fear and the desire for
security ( http://www.9types.com/epd/6.html ) in all aspects of life.
Even if Americans would give just one moment of consideration to the
idea that by focusing so intensely on protecting ourselves, we are in
some way taking on the Mark of the Beast. It may provide enough of a
shock that people take a close look at their values and consider the
possible ill effects of doing anything and everything possible to
guarantee our safety.

And if it comes from an enlightened Christian perspective, we might be
able to resolve things in such a way that does not call for further
bloodshed, and there might be the possibility that with an attitude of
forgiveness, we might start resolving any further differences peacably,
without any pressing of big red buttons.


How about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researc...ring_Committee

It fills my mind with a lot more questions, but the answers would not
help us.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Schoenfeld wrote:
As you've seen, trying to convince those who claim to be objective -
physicists/engineers/etc - with physics evidence is not going to work.
Why?

I haven't seen that. The physics evidence you have cited was about
WTC-7. The official story now seems to be that WTC-7 was intentionally
demolished. Your physics evidence is fine, though without some
expertise in demolitions, I doubt many people would be entirely
convinced either way. And I can understand your frustration that this
interesting detail has not been in the news to my knowledge.

In fact, in the weeks after the attack, ISTR hearing news articles on them
doing a controlled demo of WTC-7 to avoid its uncontrolled collapse from
damaging other structures in the area (or killing people as the Wall Street
area returned to normal commerce). Perhaps it was on the Nova program that
aired a few months later discussing the science of the collapse of the
towers.

He's tilting at windmills, as evidenced by the fact that he has concocted
this whole big conspiracy theory about the entire event, based on the video
of the collapse of one relatively minor building.

Eric Lucas

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Hey, Doofus, posting crap 3 times just makes it 3 times as crappy! Stop the
damn spam!

Here is one for Doofus.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...gon/index.html

This might be the tip of the iceberg regarding anomalies in the
official story of 911.