C'mon Bill

There's no need to be condescending brother Bill, but do you really read and scrutinize your holier than thou sources? Your first link to Thomas Eagar's errr rather quick analysis was done only a few short weeks after the attacks; Thomas Wilkinson's at U.Sydney was done errr...on the day of the attack, he surely had to have it down pat by then. Eagar's analysis doesn't even mention the very different impact damage and subsequent fires of WTC1 and WTC2. The BBC link quotes engineers saying that steel had melted...errr...when did they look at the evidence? This is at odds with FEMA's and NIST's info. The U.Sydney guy's info is at odds with FEMA, NIST, and Eagar's...he thinks the exterior columns of the buildings were what held them together, and that there was no masonry used in their constructions (errr, composite flooring w/concrete slabs, concrete surrounded central core columns?). Here, we can play link wars, the first one isn't always working though because of its transfer limit: http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/nova.htm
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523
Here's a letter from a man who was subsequently fired from Underwriters Laboratory, the company that certified the steel for the WTC buildings.
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1019
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1022
And this last one is from a hilarious conspiracy nut site, but sadly the info in their mock trial is more thorough and interesting than anything you've put up, it covers the same material, but goes a bit farther: http://69.28.73.17/911ontrial.doc/911ontrialindex.html

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.