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

In news:e7d8di$m96$3@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

But would this also say, that because the topmost floors
weren't subject
to the gravity of floors above them, so that the top of the
rubble should
be more intact? And does the photographs of the rubble show
that this is
the case, at all? No, I don't think so, that we should see
topmost floors
with less damage, at the top of the rubble...

Yes that does puzzle me to be honest. The top most floors
appear to have completely disintegrated, mind they did fall a
long way and were subjected to a lot of rising heat.

If the top floors were intact when they came to a sudden stop as 
they hit the ground at a speed of ONE HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR, 
what the hell do you really think would happen?  (When thinking 
about that, ask yourself what would happen to the floor just 
under that 50 thousand tons (wild guess) when it hit after 
falling about ten feet.

By the way, it's pretty funny that you think rising heat might be 
a factor, after hearing your comments about buildings never 
having collapsed because of fire.

But both collapses appeared to have been quite smooth and even
and the fact that some areas were clearly damaged more than
others appears to have had no effect on the way the buildings
actually collapsed. That appears to contravene the laws of
physics. Generally speaking buildings don't fall in such a
controlled way other than in a controlled demolition. 

BULL SHIT!  (Except that buildings don't "usually" fall at all.)

A law of physics predicts that anything loose hundreds of feet in 
the air is going to go straight toward the ground. The fact that 
rubble was expelled laterally at each floor during the collapse 
fits another law of physics.

On the other hand, the laws of conspiracy were contravened by the 
collapses, requiring a whole new batch.  The cool thing is that 
the nutcases can ordain whatever new ones are needed by simply 
using them, since no self-respecting "credulator" would ask 
questions or demand supporting evidence or reasoning before 
taking up the cry.