TRUTH wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

TRUTH wrote:
...

Well, it looks like controlled demolitions, all the facts easily
support controlled demolitions, the government provided no real
investigation, so why believe that it wasn't controlled demolitions?

It does NOT look like a controlled demolition. No now who has
seen fooptage of both and paid attention would think they
looked like each other.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, controlled demolitions
collapse from the bottom up.

Aside from the fact that it does NOT look a controlled demolition,
the absence of any witnesses who saw preparations for demolition
is ANOTHER good reason to not believe it. Consider, for example,
that for a controlled demolition much the structural steel is cut
through
at the point where the explosives are placed so that the explosives
will reliably finish severing them.



Sorry, but it does. Numerous engineering have said that the collapses
resemble controlled demolitions. And that includes the strucural engineer
hired by the WTC leaseholder's insurance company:

Video link of him saying it is he
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

"Resembled" doesn't mean it was, OK? The fact remains there is NO
proof of "controlled demolition" of WTC1 or WTC2 and it's time you
admitted it. All you have is people telling you it looked like it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired