Paul.L wrote, " I merely pointed out to you that Thermite doesn’t explode."

See "Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

"Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in
various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the
aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of
ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality,
resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in
preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction
to cut through steel."

To view more evidence in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis, I suggest that others visit the site "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" at http://www.ae911truth.org/ and follow the links on the right hand side about the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7.

To view more evidence that there were tonnes of molten steel, some of which remained red hot for weeks after the collapses under ther three towers, visit http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D linked from http://www.ae911truth.org/.

Paul.L wrote, "Just because people thought they heard explosions, doesn't mean the building was demolished. ..."

This ignores testimony and direct acoustic evidence of explosions in the YouTube broadcasts I listed above. It also ignores testimony of Barry Jennings (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nguZciLJTj4) the Deputy Head of Emergency management of New York City who died just over two months ago under mysterious circumstances just as pressure for New York City to hold its own inquiry into the 9/11 attack. He clearly clearly testified that he heard numerous explosions in WTC7 even before the collapse of the first of the Twin Towers.

"I know what I heard. I heard explosions. The explanation I got
was that it was the fuel oil tank. [shakes his head] I'm an old
boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one
side of the building. "

If nothing else, I think others are entitled to conclude that just because Paul.L tells us that he doesn't see the evidence, this proves doesn't prove that the evidence doesn't exist.

To view overwhelming testimony from firefighters that they heard explosions which can't be accounted for by the explanations that Paul.L has offered visit "Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories" at or download the primary document "118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers" at http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

Paul.L wrote, "... I think the way George Bush acted for however long it was, ..."

As Barrie Zwicker said:

"That famous whisper in the ear must be put into context. It takes
place at 9:05 am. That's one hour and five minutes after the first
hijacking – forty-five minutes after the FAA is aware of multiple
errant airliners, 20 minutes after the first aircraft smashes into
the Trade Center; 18 minutes after CNN breaks into regular
programming. In other words, a torrent of hot water churns under the
bridge before whisper time." ("The Great Conspiracy" (transcript at
http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/tgc.html http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/TGC_transcript_GOIssue9.pdf ))

Paul.L continued, "... was intended to demonstrate that he wasn't panicking. ..."

George Bush had already, by his own admission, witnessed the first crash supposedly on an ordinary television broadcast even though no footage of the crash had been broadcast by any television station until the next day, and had claimed to have thought it must have been an accident. As Bush said in response to a child's question on 4 December, "I used to fly myself and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot and I said it must have been a horrible accident, ..."

So, when he learns of the second tower being hit, he sits there reading a story to a child FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES just to demonstrate to the whole world "that he wasn't panicking" as those responding to the attacks are paralysed because standing orders changed weeks earlier by Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld prevent them from acting until they are able to contact the President, the Vice President or the Secretary of Defence, who are all uncontactable (as depicted on "United 93" shown on TV last Friday)?

---

I think we can safely conclude that Paul.L's willingness to accept, as within the bounds of understandable human behaviour of someone with no prior knowledge of the attack, what we witnessed of George Bush on 11 September 2001 proves that nothing will raise in Paul.L's mind any suspicions about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks.

Dagget,

What do I need? Some actual evidence of explosives, or someone admitting they were involved in planning these attacks. Something other than a bunch of half-smart conspiracy nuts making claims way above their level of understanding.

You have nothing. Just "what about the things that sounded like explosions" or " how could three buildings collapse like that" or " look at the way george bush acted".

NOTHING. I see you didn't bother to read the one link I gave to you. Its clear NOTHING will convince you because you are determined to believe the worst about Bush and the US gov't because it fits neatly into your warped worldview.

Evidence from the website you posted.

>> "“I was kind of in disbelief that the building was actually collapsing. ... I couldn’t believe that the entire building was going
to collapse in one heap.”(Captain Charles Clarke, 9110250) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse. Frankly anyone who wasn't a little shocked on 9/11 isn't human. The events were MAMMOTH in their proportion.

No one actually saw any explosions and as we have already established thermite does not explode. It initiates very rapidly but it does not explode. Just because people heard, or thought they heard explosions is evidence of nothing. No explosives residue was found.

Tell me Dagget how this explosive material survived the impact and inferno created by the jets flying into the towers? No explosives can withstand burning jet fuel.

More " evidence ",

>> "Date molten metal was observed: "more than a month after the collapse" up to 10/11/01" http://www.ae911truth.org/

Funnily enough the type of molten metal is NOT named. It could have been any of a number of metals which burns at temperatures much lower than steel.

The standard of scholarship of the conspiracy theorists is SO POOR, its no wonder that only the half-smart believe their nonsense.

As for your determination to draw a conclusion from Bush's behaviour ... why do we need lie detectors when dagget can tell what you know by your body language. Spooky.

It's Moonbat vs Wingnut!

Quite delightful really, from a purely Schadenfreude perspective.

Hilarious. Keep it up, lads.

P.S. I actually agree with Paul's salient points, but I don't understand why he continues to argue with poor old James. Remember the old saw about arguing with a fool?

CJ, The Champion of PC, the voice of "the worrying" class, he's BAACK! For some reason, can't really tell why, I recall the "empty vessels" idiom every time I see one of your posts.

Aren't you being missed at the loony-lefts annual self flagellation benefit?

Great to see that you AGAIN have something valuable to contribute on a discussion which doesn't involve fighting for your right to see naked children.

Please, Please, can we hear more of your harping and whining? I mean, actually discussing issues is clearly NOT a goal which should be pursued on OLO.

I know you and a lot of others on OLO only want to pat each other on the back over how "concerned" you are about PC issues, which is why you prefer talking to people who share your soft-left ideological beliefs.

Well, I'm not interested in chasing the warm glow of fraternal approval. Thats why I prefer to engage with people who disagree with me and you'd prefer to stand on the sidelines and snipe.

I'm glad you're getting some amusement out of this argument. We all know what they say about the easily amused and in your case it is especially apt.