new doubts on wtc collapse, page-149

re: new doubts on wtc collapse/grant62 Beetljus

There are IMO a few holes in the theory put forward in the article Jonsey just posted but not as many as the theory that that the Trade Centres collapsed as a reuslt of anything but the plane colliding with the building and the resulting fire.

I will not argue that it is not important to keep an open mind and to question what we are told. But to argue the WTC collapsed as a result of some planned explosion or other means is nothing more than fantasy.

Watching the WTC buildings come down they collasped beginning with the floors above the area impact collasping intoe the area of impact the the floors below collapsing as they were put under additional stress from the floors above.

For this to be the result of explosives that were set in the building and not the impact of the aircraft the explosives would have had to have been set on the same floors as the collision something that coordinating would have been near impossible.

As for no similar steel structure building colasping after a fire, this maybe true. But No simalar building had a plane crash into proir to the fire doing unknown structual damage then had a fire fueled by jet fuel which even though is not the highest tempture producing fire it is far higher tan what would be fueling a fire in a normal situation of a fire in a similar building.