For those of you that can't be bothered to wade through Dalbuc's double talk, allow me to give you the short cut illustration. 
Quite impressive.
See that's the thing, people want to tell you that the NIST report is accurate. But they just can't bring themselves to do it without embellishment.
The answer I got from Bucfucious and Spartan was; on the scale of absurdity theirs is less absurd.
not exactly. What I say is the official explanation goes into areas that are beyond my expertise and I don't fully understand them, but I realize that some of their explanations are hypothese because they can't categorically PROVE every little nuance of the event. Then I see the explanations offered by the conspiracy theorists and to be frank, they are ridiculous IMO.
The answer I got from Bucfucious and Spartan was; on the scale of absurdity theirs is less absurd.
not exactly. What I say is the official explanation goes into areas that are beyond my expertise and I don't fully understand them, but I realize that some of their explanations are hypothese because they can't categorically PROVE every little nuance of the event. Then I see the explanations offered by the conspiracy theorists and to be frank, they are ridiculous IMO.
Understood, Spartan.Obviously most all of this exceeds the expertise of the average person. Which is why I find it so humorous when so many demand that I explain to them a demolition theory. As if I have some sort of demolition expertise and as if they would believe anything I would tell them about demolition anyway. It's just silly talk. They should be so demanding and critical of the NIST report.But let me tell you what I know w/ o being an expert. The only steel structure building in the history of mankind to fall due to fire, according to the NIST report, was the result of office fire. Not only did it fall, it fell symmetrically, at free fall speed then it landed essentially in it's own foot print. No jet fuel, no diesel fuel, no airplane collision and no structure damage contributing.Then there's this;"In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section." Well, that's common sense. Obviously, there's going to be some resistance or even at least a toppling of the fall. But, no. NIST insists that I believe that this is due to chairs and desks set ablaze? A steel structure? No. all that nonsense defies the laws of physics.So the next logical question would be. If it didn't fall as we have been told then how did it fall?Well outward appearances suggest a controlled demolition. How was that done? I don't know. I'm not demolition expert. But plenty of architects, engineers and demolition experts are on record saying this was controlled demolition. However, there are some theories out there that haven't even been touched on in this thread.
Was brought down with explosives.
I've never mentioned anything about explosives.
You're really letting this particular subject get the better of you for some reason.
