I found this think piece about the collapses of the WTCs and

[Ice4Clark]

thought I would share the LINK. I don't know if this has been posted here or not, so took a chance it hadn't been. Forgive me if this has been posted before.

He approaches the collapes very methodically. It's a long read, but well worth it. He has many links within the article too, that are quite interesting. Don't want to ruin the read, but in the end, he doesn't buy the explanations that have thus far been given. He wrote the first part shortly after 911 and then added to it in 2002.

here's a snip of the article:


There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
(Article originally at http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm , then was moved to http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm but now back in the original location, or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal ).

But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.