Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
That's for sure!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
=46rom: Forum for Physics Educators on behalf of John Clement
Sent: Mon 11/14/2005 6:31 AM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: Here we go again. WTC brought down by aircraft, not.
=20
I haven't looked at the tapes recently, but it is my distinct impress=
ion
that they clearly show that the top parts of the building collapsed f=
irst,
and then you can see the progressive crushing of the floors below. I=
t looks
quite different from a demolition where the bottom floors collapse fi=
rst and
then the building just sinks into a pile of rubble.
This visual evidence along with the difficulty in setting charges pro=
perly,
and the structural design evidence should convince most people that t=
his
hypothesis is probably incorrect. But conspiracy theorists are never
satisfied by evidence.
John M. Clement
Houston, TX
theProfessor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC:
The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically one of =
ns ofWorld Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official explanatio=
the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physicsprofessor.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
=3D=3D=3D
Professor Has Theory About 9/11 Attacks: