>>>
Zim : If one wants me to believe the government toppled the twin towers on 9-11 there two major factors that will have to be addressed. The first and most obvious – there is no doubt two jet-liners were flown into the world trade center on 9-11. Why couldn't the carnage inflicted have brought down the building?
Micro > Would you believe it when Doctoral engineers tell you that the jet fuel fire was not the cause because there is not enough direct combustion nor heat to cause all the rest of the suporting structure underneath it to give way like it did???
>>>
Are we supposed to be letting this go?
Micro > I noticed that you did not apologize either me or Nemo, for your insulting demeanor.
I'm not sure where my 'demeanor' was
insulting enough to require an apology . ..
And I certainly don't remember you saying
anything that might require an apology from you.
Honestly, I thought we was having a disagreement
and we was trying to provide evidence that
might buttress our own cases, and point out
how the other guys case was weak. Isn't that
what a 'debate' is all about?
Now.
In your second paragraph above you asked about 'Doctoral Engineers'. I know we got 'Scientists' who fervently believe in the 'man-made global warming'. I know that certain 'Scientists' have been manipulating and 'adjusting' temperature records. So, I have no problem being skeptical about 'Doctoral Engineers' whose words make no sense to me.
'Somebody' posted an article which claimed that the burning jet fuel could not have caused the collapse because it doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Any 'Engineer' that claims that is worthy of contempt. Why? Because it is my belief that any reasonably educated person ought to know that one does not need to melt steel in order to bend it. Take a steel rod. I can't bend it. Heat the middle of it up to cherry red and I can bend it like a pretzel. (Or am I wrong to believe that?)
Oh, "not enough direct combustion nor heat to cause" . . . As I recall, the airplane knocked an airplane sized hole in the side of the building going in . . . and I think it also knocked a smaller hole out the other side. I'm pretty sure there was enough air getting in there for the jet fuel to burn. (Wasn't there also smoke coming out of the building?)
Addressing the 'explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center' . . . How many companies are capable of doing the deed and which one did it? Trot out evidence of who and how they did it and I'll be happy to contemplate the possibility . . . But I would hope that NO professional building demolitions company would willingly wire up a building for demolition while people was still in it. I should not have to say this, but only a professional demolition company could have brought down the WTC in the manner that it fell. And I don't think there are more than a handful who could have done it.
Zim.
| 
