>ok well... what this movie says is that the building was in fact >designed to withstand being hit by a plane, and that jet fuel does not >burn hot enough to achieve those results. See the movie for more >detail. I am not going to argue its merits either pro or con. > >On 8/22/06, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>
Simply put you're wrong. I don't have the references here, but both the National Institute for Standards and Technologies and the National Academy of Sciences: Engineering published very detail reports on the WTC collapse. I'll provide the links later but the reports do debunk this. Remember the aircraft were full of aviation jet fuel going into the building at several hundred miles per hour. Remembering basic phyics, force = mass X accelleration, means that there was a hell of a lot of energy released when the impact occurred. No conspiracy needed. The simplest explanation, as usual is the most likely one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:214021 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
