Laughing Boy wrote:

] Exactly what part of what happened on 9-11 do you not agree
] with? That an airliner crashing into a sky scraper can't
] produce a hot enough fire to soften the steel superstructure
] and cause it to collapse on itself?

Yes, that is what I disagree with. I base that on experiments that have been done on steel frame buildings without fire retardent sprayed on the beams.

] No. Convince *us* it WAS a controlled demolition. Since you
] also said the antenna started to collapse before the rest of
] the structure (when it clearly did NOT), the burden of proof
] is on you. Please cite evidence other than "what (your) eyes
] tell you". -LB

We'll have to agree to disagree about the antenna. I base my belief on the videos of controlled demolitions that I've seen before. I compare what I've come to expect a controlled demolition to look like to what I saw with the WTC 7 building. Have you watched those three links I quoted on WTC 7? You see the top of the building disappear into the structure first, then the whole building neatly collapses into its own footprint. WTC 7 was a 47 story building. The buildings to its left and right were unscathed after its collapse.

RE: 9-11 Research