On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:14:03 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:9k3c92hc98fd5o38jjf69ur2lgb9tvff44@4ax.com,
Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> typed:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 00:54:58 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

Even structural engineers are unable to satisfactorily explain
why all those towers fell as they did.

No, they're not.

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/ncsea.htm
The article continues over 10 pages. There's a lot of speculation in an
attempt to verify the official account, but practically no hard and fast
definite conclusions.

Problem is there will always be open questions because the official account
of what happened and what people can see for them selves differs. This
hasn't been helped by the fact that the wreckage was disposed off abroad,
very likely no longer exists so there is no way to verify anything.

Of course that also presents the question why the wreckage, which however
one looks at this is criminal evidence, was disposed of so quickly. If the
official story is true why was there a cover up and disposal of vital
evidence. Surely if the official story is true the facts should speak for
themselves. What is there to hide?

There are no other examples apart from in controlled explosions for
tall building totally collapsing as a result of fire

No other buildings have ever been hit by fully-loaded jetliners,
AND no other buildings have ever been built like the WTC buildings
were.

WTC7 collapsed supposedly from fire and that wasn't hit by any form of Jet
liner. It was only the 3rd building in history to have fallen as a result of
fire the other two being WTC 1 and 2

If you go with the above argument you have to conclude that the architects
and construction engineers who designed and built all these building were
incompetent. You also have to conclude NYC planning departments, NY fire
department were guilty of criminal negligence in allowing these building to
exist at all. Since if what you say is true they were obviously unsafe.

This argument simply doesn't hold up. It's laughable nonsense.

Speaking of "laughable nonsense", I notice that you're running away
from your B-25 argument.  

It's also notable that both the main towers collapsed from the top
down and yet WTC 2 which was hit second and fell first was hit about
half way up.

Which MIGHT be significant if they had been hit in exactly the same
way. They weren't.

Actually the buildings fell in the same way regardless of where they were
hit which is exactly the point I'm making. If the buildings collapsed as a
result of fire and impact one would expect the point of impact and the
source of the fire to have an effect on the way they fell. You would expect
the steel pillars to have weakened at the point of greatest heat and stress,
and where they were supporting the most weight.

Video evidence of the collapse of both towers show there is practically no
correlation between the point of impact, source of the fire and points of
greatest stress in the way both those buildings collapsed. Both towers
collapsed smoothly without hesitation or any resistance from areas that were
not even affected by fire or impact, within their own footprint as if in a
controlled explosion.

OK one might be able to accept one tower might fall that way by some sort of
amazing fluke, but for both towers to fall in that way does stretch the
bounds of credulity.

But they did not collapse in the way that imploded buildings do, the
way that you k'lame.  You're still at the point of "I don't understand
the technical explanation, therefore there must be a conspiracy". 

Incidentally It's also interesting to note that the Empire State
building was hit by a B25 bomber on July 28th 1945

A) That was NOT a modern commercial jetliner traveling at 500mph, and

B) The Empire State building was a 'traditional' steel framed
building.

I realise this but it does demonstrate that planes hitting tall buildings is
a quantifiable risk and something that would have been considered in the
construction of the buildings. 

What makes you believe that it wasn't taken into consideration?  OTOH,
What makes you believe that a deliberate impact was?  

Note also that when the B25 hit the Empire
State Building it was 1945 and the US was engage in WWII, so not only would
you have to take into account the possibility a plane could hit a building
but the possibility that such a plane if it were a military aircraft could
be carrying munitions, i.e. bombs, rockets. missiles and like 3000 rounds of
anti-aircraft bullets.

What I not is that you can't tell the difference between under 700
gallons of fuel versus over 20,000 gallons of fuel.  Aong other
things.  

Not that the buildings actually fell from the impact of the planes since
it's claimed the fire was the cause.

No, it's both, Ms. Clueless.  

Problem is the events of 9/11 and the collapse of the WTCs show incredible
military precision and preplanning on a level equal and or surpassing any
special forces operation yet undertaken in the history of covert operations.
Yet we are expected to believe this was perpetrated by some Arab guys with
limited flying experience that hijacked these planes in a highly coordinated
mission armed with little more than pen knives and cellphones. "Hand over
this plane or I'll hit you with my handbag!" LOL

So, your fantasies "prove" that there's a "conspiracy"?  LOL indeed.  

Well considering the incredible "success" of the operation which bears all
the hallmarks of military precision hitherto unknown in the history of
covert operations all I can say is they were very lucky to pulled it off
with such amazing precision and to such incredible effect.

Define "amazing precision".  Is that what you call a 75% success rate?

Obviously I'm not saying that Arabs would be incapable of performing a
covert operation of that magnitude with the right military training and
equipment to do the job. 

That's exactly what you are saying.  Make up your mind.  

But the official story presents these guys as
little more than semi-competent amateurs. 

Cite?  Or is that more from your imagination?  

OK there may be some prejudice
involved in portraying these terrorists in that way. But the actual events
of 911 don't support that explanation in any way shape or form. The idea is
preposterous and an insult to peoples' intelligence.

No, you just don't comprehend the facts, so you have to draw on
misinformation, disinformation, and outright fantasy, like your
preposterous comparison of a B-25 Mitchell to a Boeing 757.  

ESL! 

-- 
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B 
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast) 
Clue-Bat Wrangler 
Keeper of the Nickname Lists 
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order 
Hammer of Thor award, October 2005

"I'd love to kill you in a ring"  - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely 

"****SPV.......  So yes I am an idiot." 

"ASK THE NWS,  YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes

Bookman is yet another Usenet fignuten, meaning naysayer and/or
rusemaster of their incest cloned Third Reich.  In other words, you're
communicating with an intellectual if not a biological clone of
Hitler.
- Brad Guth tries to wax "scientific", but invokes Godwin, instead.

WWFSMD?