Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distribution of steel and concrete is going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

LOL

It’s called slavery.

I said nothing about the quality of content in the links you provided to Morgan Reynold’s 911 views, only that it was dishonest to call him a libertarian. The false association is personally defamatory .

What on Earth could be “unlibertarian” about suggesting a statist cause behind statist racial profiling?

Just two of Morgan Reynolds’ policy positions while at the NCPA:

April 4, 2001: Creating Factories Behind Bars
April 17, 2001 Racial Profiling Due To War On Drugs

There much more to being libertarian than preaching the free-market.

All that means is that despite whatever horseshit McCain believes, he doesn’t buy the conspiracy story.

McCain buys into the “they did it because they hate our freedom” lie, which that book is NOT about. That book deals only with HOW the attack happened and debunks the X-Files fairy tales that too many people have about that day.

And you really have to drop the sad black and white mentality about this. You have repeatedly oversimplified all possible positions into only two categories “Us and Them”: the “government lies” and “the truth”.

It’s a lot more complicated than that. Anyone who sees it otherwise is looking at it with the eyes of a child.

Based on a look at the evidence, it looks like a group of terrorists associated with Al Qaeda hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. And if there’s a government lie about the attacks it’s not the “how” so much as the “why”. It wasn’t because they hated us for their freedom – the real lie – it’s because of decades if not centuries of imperialistic foreign policy. Blowback, as Ron Paul rightly pointed out.

The unanswered questions about the “how” of the attack is far more likely to be simple ass-covering of the government’s neglience, stupidity and incompetence.

The Popular Mechanics article and book should be judged on its merits, the evidence presented and its arguments, not the author of its foreword — who did not contribute to the book’s contents.

But the conspiracy stories that the Truther spit out are just too completely unrealistic, and require a labyrinth of convoluted subconspiracies – all of which need to go off without a hitch – and for intelligent people to act like morons. The ever devolving rationalizations that Truthers use to back up their claims only point to a story where people choose needlessly complicated solutions to painfully simple problems.

It just doesn’t hold up.

You have no idea who these men are, what their political ideologies are, etc.
GE–please take a debating class or something. Rudimentary ad hom attacks don’t help you to win, they make you look immature and foolish.

I’ve said they had no hand in the destruction of the buildings or hijacking of the planes.”

Doesnt seem to me that WinstonSmith is a “government shill”–he seems to be a libertarian that isnt off his rocker.

You are definitely the best at introducing straw men and red herrings.

Maybe you should put forth an argument before you post any further.

Go lick the boots of your masters. This is worse than debating fundamentalists Christians. You both worship nonexistent gods and can never be convinced of anything that violates your slavish superstitions.