Read other letters about this article

• Monday, March 17, 2008 10:30 AM

  @ a matter of perspective

  "The microscopic examination of murky digital photos shows the problems with most conspiracy theories, the fact that they are way too close to the stubject."

  Some of the images are of excellent quality. But as many have said, there is more evidence than photographs and videos. If you want to "microscopically" examine something, look at the evidence found by Prof. Stephen Jones. There were iron micro-spheres found in the rubble. Nothing in those buildings or the planes could even approach the melting point of iron. Where did that extreme heat come from?

  "The collapse of the towers was of a type never before seen? Yep. I can remember no building that has ever received such an insult, a wack that smashed part of the outside structure followed by a blast of burning jet fuel. What would have been remarkable would have been if it didn't collapse."

  The twin towers were designed to be hit by airplanes, in fact they were designed to withstand multiple impacts. The wack (sic) of which you speak did take out some of the outer columns, which meant nothing since these were not main supports of the buildings, the main supports were the 47 massive interior columns which were largely undamaged. There were other buildings that sustained "wacks" but did not fall such as the one in Madrid. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

  "Nothing hit WTC 7? Actually, it was hit by one of the towers as it collapsed, then burned unrestrained for hours. Again, a type of trauma unprecedented. And so on."

  Nothing did hit WTC 7. WTC 7 was a 53 story building that would have been the tallest structure in 33 states. Building 7 was a block away! And it did not burn "unrestrained" the fires were small and isolated. The building itself was modified and hardened as it was supposed to be used as the command center for NYC in the event of an emergency. And if something did hit WTC 7, how did that happen since the towers fell into their own footprint?

  7 years later NIST still has not published it's "theory" about what caused the collapse of building 7, in fact, despite your facile attempts at an explanation, there is none. If you read the 911 Commission Report you will notice that WTC 7 is not mentioned at all, let alone explained.

  And finally you forgot to say, "nut jobs" "troofers" and "tinfoil hats".

  —Bill Owen Read Bill Owen's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel