Jim Hoffman from wtc7.net has written an article to rebut the recent article from Scientific American..

Hoffman does a GREAT job of rebutting a magazine with the word 'Scientific' in its name with more science than Scientific American could hope to shake a stick at.

so do me a favor.. compare this article from Scientific American (specifically on the subject of the collapse of the WTC towers) with this article from 911research.wtc7.net, and remind me again why the public shouldn't be asking questions? i mean seriously.

all of the recent 'mainstream' articles, excluding the recent Hustler article, on 9/11 'conspiracies' have been hateful, angry, and mostly uneducated.. they prove their points by aligning those that question 9/11 with the worst people in society, while ignoring the facts and the enormity of the subject of 9/11.. the media has constantly proven to be uneducated on even the smallest points and arguments.. which is why it is no surprise that the subject of 9/11 is never discussed, but only used to justify anything and everything.

thanks to Jim Hoffman from 911research.wtc7.net for this GREAT article.
-----