Quote Originally Posted by cmind View Post
Since no 737 had ever crashed into a building before 9/11, there's no way they could have truly predicted the full extent of the damage. Specifically, they didn't predict that gobs of burning jet fuel would soften the steel enough to collapse the building. Also, the WTC was built in the 1970s, so there was probably a LOT of cost cutting in the safety department, including adequate fireproofing.

So...if you're going to try to make your case on convincing people that a 737 full of jet fuel flying at 500 mph couldn't possibly take down a building, then you've got an uphill battle my friend.
You should read what article O posted as a response to me a while pack.
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
According to this, that is exactly what they planned for.


Also, anyone got a comment on this?
Quote Originally Posted by khh View Post
From what I can gather (from a quick google search) The Open Chemical Physics Journal isn't very well respected. This makes me wonder why the article was published there, rather than in a more reputable journal. Surely scientific journals wouldn't shy away from controversial subjects if the science presented in an article is sound.

Also this blogpost claims to cite a debunk of the article. While the source isn't very good, it does state that one authors of the article admitted that the flakes weren't enough by themselves to cause the collapse, and were probably used as fuses for other bombs. While I haven't checked the validity of that, it's worth a read.
Screw Loose Change: A Response to Harrit, Jones, et.al. From Dr Greening