Posted: Dec 02, 2010 11:03 am
psikeyhackr wrote: No it looks like people who have decided to BELIEVE this nonsense don't want accurate data. They just prefer to believe their chosen conclusion and don't demand the info form the experts they TRUST. AUTHORITY said it so it must be true
The sidetracking of people who could be constructive political dissidents by your pointless conspiracy theory has already been pointed out. You have greater faith in the US goverment's abilities than the people who think demolition or "false flag" is a load of old cobblers.
My model doesn't need to be set on fire. The top of the north tower was not raised the height of the entire building the way I lifted the top portion of my model. Presumably it was the fire which made the collapse possible.
Well...yeah. The buildings survived the impact (despite extensive damage) but it was the fire that completed the job.
Seeing as the event involved a fire, it would seem that any model that does not include fire is modelling a different event.
So what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can collapse?
Proofreading. Is useful.