Better Debunking Ideas

[JD]

Better debunking ideas than Popular Mechanics, Skeptic, and NIST came up with. I still can't vouch for veracity of them but interesting points of view.<br><br>WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html" target="top">www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Viscoelastic Dampeners may have failed at WTC leading to collapse<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/7457.html" target="top">www.designcommunity.com/discussion/7457.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>(PS if someone is wondering why I'm doing posting debunking stuff; I really don't understand WTF happened. Can't get my head around the standard explanations frrom either camp. Call me agnostic to the whole issue, but very interested, I'm a nuts and bolts kinda guy. Gotta be careful how I say "I'm a nuts.... kinda guy" ha ha)<br> <p></p><i></i>

[JD]

In the coupling thread - basically says this was a known design flaw and could be behind much of the frantic evidence destruction and piss poor analysis of the collapse.<br><br>Might be a massive liability suit to a lot of people if this was indeed a contributor to the collapse. <p></p><i></i>