Reply #118: I'm sorry, but I don't believe we need to answer that question...

[mikelewis]

You're argueing that the towers could not have been wired by explosives because this would have been impossible to do. People would see the workers wiring the buildings and someone would have noticed men placing explosives in the buildings. What you fail to take into consideration is the fact that the buildings could not have simply pulverized themselves at that speed. That is impossible. So, either we are all completely wrong about how long the buidings took to hit the ground or some other explanation must exist to account for the speed of collapse. Since the OCT states the speed of collapse and that is impossible without some other force acting to move that building down faster, the burden of proof is not on us. The burden of proof is on those who say it the building naturally destroyed itself according to the laws of physics. Is the time it took to collapse wrong? Is the equation for calculating the freefall speed wrong? If none of these calculations are wrong, the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who say this is inaccurate. It was impossible for those buildings to fall without an outside force such as controlled demolitions. It's irrelevant to the arguement as to when they were placed, it could not have acted that way without them. And you know it.