CarolC you wrote:
Do you really think, robomatic, that being severely damaged on one side can account for a perfect free fall speed demolition that we saw with building 7? If you can't apply the 'science' that the NOVA people are trying to use for the other two buildings, how can you possibly believe that it fell for any reason other than controlled demolition?

CarolC: I think you are misinterpreting my last message. I think one can apply the laws of physics to the motions of all the participants in the events of 911. I find the Nova article and their website to be perfectly clear and convincing. The fact that I don't know anything about WTC7 is an example of the limits of my knowledge, which doesn't imply that it can't be explained by the NIST in some other venue. I simply haven't studied the matter.

so sweet is utterly unconvincing. Unless you can put together some assemblage of facts indicating the towers fell by something other than the NIST conclusion, I don't find this thread going anywhere.

One interesting side note which I'm pretty sure I've mentioned earlier. In the Summer of '01 the writer/ producer behind "X-Files" aired the first episode of "The Lone Gunmen" where one of the heroes finds himself on an airliner being remote flown into the World Trade Center!