ZIM
believe what you want. I have said that at least five times in ALL of my posts on this.
I am done with it. Feel free to be the resident expert on structural framing of skyscrapers. I am sure those two doctoral degreed engineers did not know what they were looking at or talking about.
No remote possibility that they could possibly be correct.
So there ya go. Believe what you want or at least let your mind open up and consider strongly the rational argument and evidence that exhaustive report says.
I haven't enough background to say positively one way or another but if you do, go for it..
I thought what I read about it was extremely interesting and bore some credibility. Others around the world apparently have also. But as I said, feel free to believe what ya want. It's a free country, at least for the moment, and I am not going to get in the way...
I see this entirely differently than you. You see it differently. THAT IS OKAY.
I stated my reasons why I do not believe the official George W. Bush account.. If those reasons offended you, I apologize.
IT'S OKAY TO THINK DIFFERENTLY.
Please allow me, Nemo, De, Beldin, Ribit, HydroGen, Bert, Ernie, kathy, CJ, anyone else I left out to have a different opinion without trying to demean them, talk down to them, give them high school shop class experiments as rationale when I already know about all kinds of various alloys and compositions of metals, and please, You think what you want to about the collapse of the Tower and I will continue to doubt the official Bush explanation as he sits on a Bildeberger council with a bunch of other one worlder wannabe's deciding what is good for all the rest of us..
I do not agree with that explanation. You may or may not. IT IS OKAY. Please give me the same amount of lattitude and Nemo.
He posted a great article that had the work of prominent engineers in a well documented study.
Will it ever get a thorough examination in a court?
Not if there are bunch of closed minds. It does not fit the spun narrative.
For me, this is a different type of work because it involves in depth study and applies engineering principles that make it to me even more interesting.
Now, could their hypothesis be incorrect? Possibly. COuld it be correct? Possibly. I would like to see the entire thing and the mathematics behind it and the structural datum used.
This simply makes more sense to me than the other explanation. YMMV. But I do not fault you for leaning toward what you think is more plausible.
Please give me and Nemo and anyone else the same lattitude and grace to express our thoughts.
Thanks.
| 
