To: Don Earl who wrote (10036 ) 2/17/2005 1:17:49 PM From: LPS5 Respond to Either that or a half wit, perhaps both. have to be a "government disinformation agent" to endorse a theory which doesn't quite embrace the idea that aircraft were not only flown into the towers, but were carefully guided into the floors just above where "explosives" were planted and, thereafter, detonated. Why it is that academics tend to believe a small amount of knowledge, in a narrow field, qualifies them to speak authoritatively on subjects, far outside their fields of study[?] He first admits he doesn't know diddly squat about controlled demolitions... "Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." ...then proceeds to claim he knows more it about than the experts. "...I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways." doesn't have an edge, in terms of knowledge and intuition, where demolition and the structural integrity of buildings are concerned? If you want an opinion from someone who doesn't know diddly squat about controlled demolitions, why not ask a fry cook at McDonald's. If you want an opinion from an expert, you will have to find someone with expertise in demolitions. e
