what Miss Manners or Wikipedia Authority enshrines that, that one should not stick one's reply at the beginning?
assuming adequate referential skills, on both sides of the screen, doesn't it save one from some repeatative strange injury?
> (And please -- the convention here is to not top-post.)
thus: Pierre Duh, that's what our Muslim Fisikist, Schonfeld, is trying to say: that the biggest bombs ever to have hit the biggest buildings, could not have resulted in such a "free fall" collapse, although that's just a fisikal hypothesis.
> makes this much more different then free fall. Why would you make such > simple assumptions about such a complex process?
thus: I may be extrememly socially retarded but I'm not stupid -- this is a *classic* analysis of Muslim Fisiks, which also tend to be hardcore examples of it.
the real question is, Why should Earth's tallest, rather highly tensile structure not collapse at the speed of freefall?
I said, Why not?
anyway, there's a good analysis of the comparison between a surreptitious bombing, and an inside controlled demo, in the current issue of that MIT mag -- *Technology & Innovation*, or some thing -- using the Murrah Building for the example.
still, it is high time to impeach Trickier Dick Cheeny, who did *what* in the Nixon Administration with Don Rumfseld?... oh, you were convinced by that braindead guy, that he did it?