You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer
supported by the Administrators.
Visit
The New DU. Reply #107: Umm, dude
[View All]
spooked911
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jul-31-10 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #105 |
|
WTC5&6 don't really help your argument as they underwent massive damage and fires and still didn't collapse. WTC3 was pelted by hundreds of tons of debris and was destroyed, but the lower levels didn't collapse.
I think the point about the fires is that they had a suspicious origin.
The freefall issue is still important because a huge bulk of the structure-- at minimum the outer walls, fell down at freefall speed!
Not sure what your point about the BBC is-- he mentions them in his chart.
One might think the 9/11 commission would have made some mention of the complete "collapse" of WTC7, with it's many important offices.
Nice of you to completely ignore the WTC7 steel pieces that showed extraordinarily high temps! Good work!
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread