Bookman wrote:

All I see here is from you is k'lames and ad hominems.  Looks like you
are afraid of the facts.  Like the fact that the steel doesn't have to
melt to give way, for example.  Interesting that you call the load,
times three, "500%", though.  Looks like you are math-challenged.
Since you are such an expert on the construction tolerences of the WTC
towers, do please be so kind as to post your references.

Do you believe that the impact of a B-25 Mitchell is the equivalent of
the impact of a Boeing 767, too?

ESL!

Okay I see how you operate now. You don't offer any links or references
to your
half-baked over-exaggerated figures because you've been ordained by a
higher
power. I'm not your babysitter nor am I your educator. I don't frequent
these types
of newsgroups because of people like you [Book?] man. I have been
browsing a
few different NG's relating to this subject and it's funny how people
like you are
everywhere, clogging these threads with useless psychobabble and
demanding
proof. The last time I checked, the definition of conspiracy was fairly
straight forward
and easy to understand. If you were wanted the truth rather than proof,
it isn't hard
to find. The sun came up yesterday, which is the truth. To offer proof
that the sun came up would present problems. You could offer formulas,
pictures, eye-witness acounts, or scientific data as your proof. Of
course any of these individual examples of proof could easily be
debunked. But if you logically considered all of the evidence combined,
and you wanted to find the truth, this would be sufficient. But anyone
wanting to challenge your conclusion could still claim that they are
not convinced. That's your problem.