I'll play along for a little longer....

Sam writes:

There was no metallic confetti produced as one might expect when the aluminum fuselage struck the steel exterior. On this site you'll see some pics of what we expect to see when a plane strikes a wall like this:


1) Fighters are very different from commercial aircraft.

2) Hitting a rigid concrete wall is different from hitting a building that is designed to flex in hurricane-force winds. The WTC wasn't covered with rigid steel. The WTC wasn't built from concrete walls that were ~20' thick.

3) I didn't expect "confetti" - whatever you mean by that. There was a lot of debris from the planes outside the buildings, as BP pointed out.

You're aware, aren't you, that [link|http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20020311/opinions2.shtml|water can cut through steel]. Materials with a lot of momentum can do a lot of damage.


You seem to want to make a big deal about a grainy video tape, while ignoring the physics, the eyewitnesses, and the forensic analysis. Why is that? Is everyone who has studied this professionally lying?

Since you cited [link|http://www.911-strike.com/siding-scam.htm|this] site, do you actually believe it?

Eyewitness testimony establishes quite definitively that a Boeing 757 was seen flying over Washington and then approaching the Pentagon along a flight path near the Sheraton Hotel in Arlington, and over the Naval Annex of Arlington National Cemetery. Thus, the perpetrators of the attack had this 757 at their disposal, and could easily have crashed it into the Pentagon. We are arguing that they chose not to do so, but rather that they might have perpetrated an elaborate hoax -- thus taking the risk that their deception might have failed, or been detected. Why would they do this?

Our analysis suggests three possible albeit highly speculative motives, if in fact the perpetrators were working for New World Order intelligence agencies :

[...]


Why should we regard "Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell" and their opinions more highly than people with demonstrated competence in physics, metallurgy, forensics and other relevant fields?

Inquiring minds...

Cheers,
Scott.