06-08-2013, 04:26 AM
Magda Hassan Wrote:It would be more helpful if you 2 guys could just lay out the technical details of your respective positions and refute the others based on that rather than all the emotional name calling stuff which is just unhelpful.I have done that already and the paper speaks for itself. Jeffrey is the one making false claims about it and trying to confuse by lumping in other details which don't have to do with the paper, which is the subject of this thread. People should just read it and understand that it has been proven that there was not enough kinetic energy in the fall of the upper section of the North Tower to overcome the energy absorption of the columns below to naturally continue the collapse. They should also understand that the paper also shows that the acceleration through the first story was much too high to have been due to heat weakened columns.