"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:Xns97E76BA6D16B5thathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4,
John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:170620061833595423%erfc@netcabal.com,
Art Deco <erfc@netcabal.com> typed:

Amanda Angelika <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

The only thing I can think of that might have been capable
of disintegrating solid high tensile fire resistant steel
that the WTCs were constructed of would have been
anti-matter devices. IMO it's the only explanation that
makes any sense.

Just give up thinking, it isn't working out for you.

I used to think the conspiracy theories were simply Islamic
propaganda and basically treacherous anti-American/Us
government lies and simply concocted to spread doubt,
disinformation and division.

Problem is though there are dozens of videos of the events
of 911 showing exactly what happened which leave many
unanswered questions. Even structural engineers are unable
to satisfactorily explain why all those towers fell as they
did. 

It would be high entertainment to see you try to justify that
ignorant remark.

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.

Why bother with it then?  You could find engineering analyses of 
the entire sequence of events if you wanted to.

"Over ten pages"...BFD.  I think the vast abortion created by a 
fucked-up featherbrain named Dick Eastman might be ten times 
that. 

After all they were not made of plastic wood and cardboard
like some Hollywood set but a very strong high tensile steel
framework.

There are no other examples apart from in controlled
explosions for tall building totally collapsing as a result
of fire and yet on 9/11 there were three buildings that
collapsed in that way and one of them wasn't even hit by an
aeroplane. 

There are examples of tall buildings collapsing under their
own weight.

Though strangely none designed and built by competant
architects and structural engineers and properly maintained to
a high standard. 

It's time for you to show us your credentials when you make  
statements like that...

There are no other examples of tall buildings being turned
into torches with a hundred thousand pounds of jet fuel,
though. 

Of course not you'd have problems getting a hundred thousand
pounds of jet fuel into the air it was a passenger jet not the
Titanic. 

Check it out.  Hints: Jet fuel weighs about seven pounds per 
gallon.  A 747's fuel capacity is around 50,000 gallons. You can 
probably find the same info for 757 and 767, but I don't think 
you're really interested in knowledge. It could get in your way.  

By the way, the Titanic left port with way over a thousand tons 
of fuel--probably closer to ten thousand tons.  For your 
information and fascination, that means at least two "million" 
pounds of it.

At most we are talking a couple of thousand gallons,
a considerable amount of which would have exploded and
vaporised in the impact fireball since the fuel tanks are 
normally housed in the wings this is clearly evident in video
footage. 

Sure, "a considerable amount" burned explosively, probably 
leaving only a hundred thousand pounds to burn inside the 
building.

Bottom line:  You have demonstrated emphatically and 
unequivocally that you have absolutely no idea what you're 
babbling about.