Now see... this kind of thing becomes difficult for skeptics...

[Winchester]

[quote] I agree with this urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:



Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged:

The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers....

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

[/quote]

The professor is a dishonest piece of shinobi.

He disgregards the fact that steel buildings regularly collapse. The lack of honesty in places I can easily verify casts doubt on the veracity of his more outrageous claims. He commited the same miserable filthy little bit of deception I've found common to his ilk: he truncated a quote to give credence t ohis imbecilic theory.

I'm tired. I think I've wasted far to much time, and I'm running out of pearls to cast. I have presented enough arguments and I rest my case, whether you are convinced or not, I am finished.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='994082' date='May 31 2006, 08:33 PM']
The professor is a dishonest piece of shinobi.

He disgregards the fact that steel buildings regularly collapse. The lack of honesty in places I can easily verify casts doubt on the veracity of his more outrageous claims. He commited the same miserable filthy little bit of deception I've found common to his ilk: he truncated a quote to give credence t ohis imbecilic theory.

I'm tired. I think I've wasted far to much time, and I'm running out of pearls to cast. I have presented enough arguments and I rest my case, whether you are convinced or not, I am finished.
[/quote]

Did you actually read beyond that? I invite you to ignore what you falsely believe to be this professor's supreme dishonesty.

But if you would rather believe that he is an outright liar, go ahead.

There was MELTED steel at the WTC attack site. THAT IS HISTORICAL FACT. And, as this reputable article lays out very well, hydrocarbon fires cannot melt steel:

[url="http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html"]http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html[/url]

While I see and appreciate the very good explanation in this article on why the buildings came down, it doesn't explain the presence of molten metal at the site. It also says something which I'm not sure is accurate: the towers were capable of implosion because they were 95% air. What happened to "air resistance?" They came down at a speed totally consistent with a controlled demolition with apparently near ZERO resistance to the collapse process. I don't think that could have happened unless ALL resistance had be annihilated by some greater force BELLOW the dropping mass (greater than the collapse itself).

Whatever the case may be, I'm done here as well.

Peace master pirate!