Re: Some of the 9/11 outrageous lies

"Pega" <Peg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:KLsBj.308967$GI1.289498@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hotblack Desiato wrote:
>>
>> No answer again. You promised a lot and delivered next to nothing..
well 
>> done.. an improvement on nothing at all
>
> There you go chum, all the answers you need:
>
>
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/outgoing.cgi?u=http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>

The popular mechanics article cited, has been debated and questioned on
many 
fronts by many people... Google ....

The part you cite is of no relevance as I've already agreed that the 
collapse of 1 and 2, could conceivably be caused by the impacts.

And indeed, the nature of the collapse of the towers, could happen as the 
top floors collapsing, push out the floor attachments to the exterior
walls 
further down, therefor removing much of the resistance before impact.
Still, 
freefall is a little difficult to accept.

The Popular Mechanics article really doesn't answer as much as it first 
appears to, but I'm sure you've already researched a lot of the questions 
raised  in response to this article