Cloudseeder

"To call it a "glancing blow" is really pushing it." Well Paul, considering the well aligned mid- face perpendicular strike of the first 767 into the North Tower , the strike to the South Tower could only be described as a "glancing blow" . It's obvious that the pilot of the plane which impacted the South Tower never penetrated the building to the mid core of structural columns. His payload of fuel was mostly thrown outside the building as seen in the fireballs on many photo websites. It is obvious that his strike was not nearly as well placed as the pilots' who attacked the North Tower. Interestingly enough , the South Tower collapsed long before the North Towers' collapse. Care to explain that or provide a link to any civil or structural engineer who attempts to explain that? Thanks , Cloud Seeder

"Since I have no reason to believe the photos were doctored in any way shape or form, I believe the burden of proof that they were doctored would rest on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. " Well sure that is where the burden of proof lies but look at the photo again. Do you believe that the photo is legite? The top of the building toppling away from the corner supports which were taken out? If a corner of the building was taken out wouldn't you expect the building to fall toward that corner? After an extensive search of the internet I've not been able to find video of the Towers collapse! Can you find working links to those videos? Any help would be appreciated. If video of the collapse has been systematically swept off the internet, would you agree that there is a conspiracy? "Treetop" a.k.a. Cloud Seeder

"In the interest of learning something, can you explain how it wasn't the fire and design/structure and lack of fire retardant whacamacallit on the top floors? And what supports that theory? Sure Michelle, the fact is that the fire just wasn't that hot. There can be no doubt that the attack on the South tower(the second hit) expelled the majority of the fuel payload outside the building as that aircraft hit on an angle to the face and basically just took out the corner. Interesting to me that the building which took the slightest impact, the building which sustained only a *glancing blow* , the building which recieved the least amount of Jet A payload to fuel a fire was the first to collapse! And the collapse was straight down. 110 stories straight down! No twisting, no tilting, just straight down. Do you really believe , Michelle, that asymetrical forces of events such as an impact or a fire could cause all of the supporting structural steel to give way at exactly the same moment in time? Two different structures with two different and distinct impact profiles each falling straight down? Because without any twisting or toppling of either of the the "twinn towers" during their demolition, the supporting columns would necessarily have failed at the exact same moment in time. We both know that isn't very likely considering the method of attack which we witnessed. No Michelle, others reponding have eaten up the * media/ government play*. They haven't bothered to think it through. I guess that is the easier way to go. Fair Winds and Unlimited Ceilings Michelle, Don "Treetop" Jardine a.k.a Cloud Seeder

Quote "Don -- Last time I checked, gravity worked pretty much straight down. Since the structural steel of the building's floors seems to have melted as a result of the fire -- not of the impact -- it only seems logical they'd pretty much fall straight down. " Umm ... Paul, from which source do you get your data? My sources seem to believe that the fire damage would have been minimal and certainly not of a high enough degree to cause a catastrophic failure of the steel beams. " However, there is one photo on the web site that shows that the top of one of the towers did seem to slide off to the side a bit as it got nearer to the ground. " And look at that pic a little more closely. http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf figure 12. Do you believe that is an actual pic or has it been doctored a bit? Notice the impact area and the direction the building topples. Isn't that strange? The building collapses opposite the missing columns? I was watching live video at the time. I don't remember the video looking like that pic. If the historical pic is doctored would you agree that there may be a conspiracy? Thanks Paul, Don

" Can sombebody please explain to me why whenever something bad happens in the U.S., there's some whack-job out there that has to blow it into a mind-numbingly stupid conspiracy theory? " Paul , can you explain how two different buildings, impacted at different angles, speeds and by different loads, at different levels , each fell as if by a designed implosion? Did you notice the nearly vertical descent of the radio tower on one of the buildings? Paul, If the collapse of either tower was due to an impact,.. wouldn't you expect at least one of them to topple somewhat sideways? But no Paul, each of them fell nearly perfectly vertical, like a planned implosion. Conspiracy? As painful as it may be for many of us, watch the buildings and especially the radio tower fall again. Conspiracy certainly can not be ruled out. Any engineers here care to explain how two buildings struck by aircraft in differing angles of attack would fall in almost exactly the same vertical direction? Thanks, Cloudseeder