Rant, eh daggett? That's rich, coming from you.

>>Where have you proven that if the management and security had colluded with those who had planted and wired the explosives, that it was logistically impossible?<<

Proving something "impossible", as you well know, is impossible.

So we have to rely upon good ol' common sense.

One of the aspects of the "demolition" theory has been nagging me, and I wonder if you could clarify.

Here's one (of many) descriptions.

"Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features... Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition"

http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

According to you, this was part of an orchestrated attack, by the US government, on its own people.

Right?

And to achieve it, you reckon, they planted thousands of tonnes of explosives throughout the building, to cause it to collapse.

Right?

To pull it all together would take substantial, detailed planning.

Right?

Then please explain to me why the conspirators allowed it to look as though the building had been professionally demolished with explosives.

Don't you think that one of them - being as they were so clever and all - might have said something along the lines of...

"Shouldn't we make sure it looks like it collapsed due to the fire? Won't it look suspicious if we collapse it into its own footprint, and leave nanothermite all over the place...?

Just asking.

And here's another thought. In fact it might be a useful exercise for you in your spare time.

Write out a script for the following screenplay:

You are addressing a number of lift mechanics. You have to convince them that laying thousands of tonnes of explosives, designed to kill their fellow-citizens, is a really neat idea.

If you can do that, it could be the start of a whole new career for you.

Firstly, note that Pericles has quietly stopped his denial that the US Government, including Condoleezza Rice, are guilty of knowingly having condemned almost all the First Responders to chronic ill health and thousands to death when they lied to them telling them that the toxic WTC dust was safe to breathe.

The evidence I have given is just the tip of a a massive, incontrovertible and damning body of evidence against the US Government, and it's inconceivable that Pericles could not be unaware of its existence well before now.

Yet, he persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged.

---

Also, note how nothing in Pericles' previous post substantiates his claim that it would have been logistically impossible for the necessary explosives to have been planted.

Obviously, it would have been a large-scale complex operation, but the US Government has massive resources at its disposal, including hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget.

Why, in these circumstances, is it inconceivable to Pericles that dozens of workers, pretending to be there for other purposes could have gained the necessary access to the structural columns to have planted the explosives in the months prior to 9/11?

Why is it inconceivable to Pericles that the necessary explosives, detonators and wires etc, could not have been brought inside, disguised as something else and carefully guarded by people instructed to keep prying eyes well away?

Why is it inconceivable to Pericles that prying eyes could have been kept well away from the planted explosives for the necessary period of time until they were eventually detonated?

The only way that it can be established that all of this was impossible for this hypothesis to have been thoroughly investigated. This is what 1124 qualified Architects and Engineers, who are members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) are demanding.

Why shouldn't that hypothesis be investigated, Pericles?

Pericles demands to know, "Then please explain to me why the conspirators allowed it to look as though the building had been professionally demolished with explosives."

Glad to see that Pericles has conceded that 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

Now where in this forum, or indeed, anywhere, has Pericles explained how a few random fires could cause the total destruction and dismemberment of a steel structured buildings at little more than free-fall speeds, in excatly the manner of controlled deomolitions, not once, but three times in one day, when it has never occurred before and never occurred since?

In answer to Pericles' question: no-one can know for sure until the 'collapse' is properly investigated, can they?

Perhaps the demolition did not go exactly according to plan. David Ray Griffin's hypothesis is that WTC 7 was meant to 'collapse' shortly after the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers.

All the dust would have prevented the embarrassment of the 2.25 seconds of free-fall descent having been captured on film.

Anyway, the only way we can know is if that is that were to be thoroughly investigated.

So, again, what are Pericles' reasons for opposing the demands by those 1124 architects and engineers for a new and proper investigation?

You have a vivid imagination, daggett, that's for sure.

>>Glad to see that Pericles has conceded that 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition.<<

I have made no such claim. It is the "9/11 conspiracy" web sites that do that, not me.

I was simply pointing out that if there was any consistency at all in their thinking, this particular thought-bubble must have occurred, at some point.

Which it obviously did not.

>>Perhaps the demolition did not go exactly according to plan. David Ray Griffin's hypothesis is that WTC 7 was meant to 'collapse' shortly after the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers<<

Rather thin reasoning, that.

Suggesting that the plan went wrong doesn't illuminate this particular quirk, though, does it daggett? After all, placing those explosives requires significant skill and precision implementation. Doesn't sound like a mistake could have resulted in anything quite so.... tidy.

>>All the dust would have prevented the embarrassment of the 2.25 seconds of free-fall descent having been captured on film.<<

You could plan for that? Wow.

>>So, again, what are Pericles' reasons for opposing the demands by those 1124 architects and engineers for a new and proper investigation?<<

Personally, I couldn't give a tuppenny toss.

I have simply been pointing out the obvious. That there has been no coherent justification so far for the additional expense, nor for putting witnesses through the ordeal again, more than eight years on,

The likelihood is also that you conspiracy-doofuses would not accept the legitimacy of a conclusion, unless it is in line with your fantasies. Would you?

But if those who pay the bill don't care, I certainly wouldn't.

OK, then, Pericles, suit yourself.

The 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks to Pericles nothing like the a controlled demolition.

Others should check for themselves in the YouTube video at video "WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

Why leading European demolition engineer Danny Jowenko said, when he first observed the WTC 7 'collapse' that it looked to him exactly like a controlled demolition will forever remain a mystery.

Why news presenter Dan Rather said immediately after he had watched WTC 7 'collapse' that it reminded him of a controlled demolition will also remain a mystery.

---

Pericles wrote, "this particular thought-bubble ... obviously did not [occur to you]."

Yes it did. Read my post about David Ray Griffin's hypothesis.

Why do you persist in telling such obvious and easily refutable lies, Pericles?

---

Pericles wrote, "I have simply been pointing out the obvious."

No you haven't.

All you have been doing is repeating baseless assertions over and over and over again.

The justification for a new inquiry is that the causes of what would have to be amongst the three worst engineering disasters in history have not been explained.

They have not been explained by you on any forums in which you have participated, nor anywhere else.

Hmmm. We seem to be running out of new material here, daggett.

Never mind. We'll just work with what we have.

>>The 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks to Pericles nothing like the a controlled demolition.<<

Actually, the point I was making was that it doesn't matter what I think in this instance. It is the inherent contradiction for the conspiracy-doobs, that the masterful planners that you envisage would have made such an elementary mistake in allowing it to look like one.

So the more evidence you try to put forward for the "controlled demolition" theory, the more unlikely it would be that it was a deliberate act.

>>Read my post about David Ray Griffin's hypothesis.<<

You didn't actually quote him, though, which would have been the polite thing to do. You simply mentioned in passing that the collapse "did not go exactly according to plan".

No mention of what the original plan might have been, how it might have been feasible, or even how the failure of that plan might have accounted for the "obvious" demolition scenario.

(I have noticed that it is one of the major feature of your protestations. You leave a lot out.)

>>All you have been doing is repeating baseless assertions over and over and over again<<

Moi? Pas du tout, mon cher.

You have so far provided every single one of the "baseless assertions".

My task here is to point out how silly they are.