----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"
> Dan Minette wrote: > > Looking at the contention that the nature of the collapse was > > consistent with demolition instead of desctruction by a shock wave > > going downwards, we can look at: > > > > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/#northtower > > > > The composit ABC vidio shows pretty clearly that the bottom parts of > > the building do not start to fall until the wave of destruction > > reaches them. If multiple charges went off, then the collapse would > > take place near simultaneously. > > > > After spending time looking at this, I still cannot see where the > > alledged holes in the explaination provided by civil engineers is. > > I'd appreciate a description of why the professional explaination > > cannot be right. > > > > Dan, I don't deny it, I question it. > I would have an easier time with the way it collapsed if the buildings > had toppled onto their neighbors (as awful as that sounds). It is the > 3 buildings collapsing straight down that boggles my imagination. I cannot see, given the mechanism of failure, how they would topple. What would hold one side of the building up for a significant length of time? Once I started doing the physics of it in my head, it seemed obvious to me....given the structure of the building and the nature of the collapse. And I appreciate that you are not denying it, but simply stating contradictions with earlier experience. However, it did seem to me that David Land stated that the commonly accepted explanation is just as full of holes as the conspiracy theories....and that's what I was addressing with my comment. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
