Which Arguments Should Be Used When Talking About 9/11?

[thumper]

where's the all encompassing "illuminati" option?

[psikeyhackr]

How about a little common sense that doesn't require a PhD in physics and a master's in structural engineering.

Didn't each level of the towers have to have enough steel to hold the weight of all of the levels above it? Didn't the people who designed the buildings in the 60's have to figure that out? So shouldn't it be possible to get that info from the original documentation?

So if someone claims they can explain to you how a 200 ton airliner could make a 500,000 ton building collapse straight down shouldn't they be able to tell you the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the building?

It has been 6 years. Have you heard how many tons of steel were on the 79th, 80th and 81st floors of the south tower where the plane hit? If not then how can you accept that enough steel could weaken in 56 minutes for the entire building to collapse? With all of the steel manufactured in this country in the last 100 years shouldn't experts know what temperatures are necessary to weaken how much steel in a given amout of time?

Some things are just to ridiculous to believe without precise verifiable data.

Admittedly airliners don't fly into skyscrapers every day but shouldn't the nation that put men on the moon be able to come up with an ironclad explantion for a building collapse 38 years that technological marvel?

psik

[psikeyhackr]

It is now 7 1/2 years.

Plane and simple Newtonian Physics doesn't seem to work for most people.

What is with the silence from our engineering schools?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

psik