Score:

Moonbat: 4.7
Wingnut: 997.7

Forrest Gumpp to take on the biggest loser.

Did you just make those figures up, CJM, or did you arrive at them through some objective process, presumably entailing, on your part, comprehension of the arguments put?

---

Paul.L wrote, "I merely rebutted YOUR point that 'WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day IN WAYS THAT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS'".

Well, perhaps I should have said, then, in regard to WTC1, and WTC2 "in ways that looked strikingly similar to controlled demolitions".

The essential point is that the collapses looked controlled and not unplanned for reasons that have been covered exhaustively here and elsewhere.

It may well be that no other building in the world has ever been demolished in such a fashion. If you insist that therefore the remarkably symmetrical, neat and complete collapse of the twin towers must have been uncontrolled, then, as I said, fine, let's agree to disagree and let others from their own conclusions as to which of the two of us is the more objective and rational.

Anyhow, Paul.L, I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that the WTC7 collapse looked exactly like a conventional controlled demolition, even if the other two did not.

---

Paul.L wrote, "I have posted photos clearly showing that the WTC were not crumbled into dust. You have offered nothing to rebut that."

I consider this time-wasting pedantry.

Obviously some of the structural steel on the outer wall of the very bottom of the buildings held together.

So what?

The rest of the 100+ stories including all the concrete did crumble to dust.

"Run, Forrest, run!" says Paul.L

Alright, I'll run this past viewers.

"What evidence do you believe exists that hasn't been properly explained?" asks Paul.L

This question is a little difficult to answer for grammatical reasons. Nevertheless I shall attempt it.

I believe there exists evidence for the world having been and remained surplus one substantially complete* set of Boeing 757 aircraft components above all accounted for production, as adjusted for all documented losses up until 9:38 AM US EST on 11 September 2001, since that date. You will note the cut-in point for the surplus corresponds with the claimed loss of American Airlines Flight 77 in crashing into the Pentagon at 9:38 AM on that day. As to where those components ended up is a challenge for investigation.

Griffin, on page 36 of 'The New Pearl Harbour', harmonises several theories that account for the seeming absence of evidence that it was a Boeing 757 that struck the Pentagon. Griffin says:

"Eastmans theory, in other words, is that an American Airlines plane was putting on an attention-
getting exhibition to draw all eyes to itself. Then it flew towards the Pentagon while the missile
was heading in the same direction — too close to the ground for most witnesses to see it even if
they had not been distracted by the airliner. Then the airliner veered off at the last second,
disappearing behind the immense cloud of smoke produced by the crash. It then landed unnoticed
at Reagan National Airport, which was only a mile away in the direction it was headed. >57"

This bald outline, one that is capable of being seen to be consistent with all the seemingly contradictory witness testimony, is, in my opinion, also capable of being rationaly integrated with co-ordinated intended suicide attacks upon not only the WTC, but also the Washington Capitol building. It is this last failed attack that would have made possible an effective coup.

*Missing perhaps only a set of flight recorders subsequently claimed to have been found in the damaged section of the Pentagon.

Dagget,

You say >> “I consider this time-wasting pedantry.”

I consider almost ALL of the arguments you have put forward as such. Very few had any validity.

You have not once put forward ANY evidence showing this “crumpled to dust” theory. I have SHOWN you pictures of the massive amounts of steel left in the rubble pile. I have shown you pictures of floors compacted so tightly that four stories were now 3 feet high. Furthermore, the WTC were somewhat unique in having a tube in tube design. A lot less concrete was used in these buildings. In any case, thermite does not cause concrete buildings to crumble to dust.

That’s the problem with the truthers, one minute their saying that it was “super thermite” which caused the collapse and created “rivers of molten steel”, next their saying that the building was “exploded” into dust using explosives.

But Dagget, explosives don’t crumble buildings into dust either. You still haven’t done any of your own research on the basics of demolition, have you. Certainly columns and other supporting structures are cut with explosive cutting charges, but the idea isn’t to explode the building into a cloud of dust. In order to do that, massive quantities of explosives would be needed and the shrapnel would go everywhere at 50,000m/s. Absolutely unmistakeable, that’s for sure. No, demolitions use gravity and the inertia of the building to force it into smashing itself into pieces

>> “The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.”
See here http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

TBC

cont,

You say >> “. If you insist that therefore the remarkably symmetrical, neat and complete collapse of the twin towers must have been uncontrolled, then”

You STILL don’t get it, I introduced that evidence merely to show you that it did not look like a controlled demolition, NOT to prove that it happened the way it actually happened. In terms of proving that it did happen the way NIST explains it, all I can do is point to

1) the jets
2) the fires
3) the actual collapse
4) the PEER REVIEWED scientific reports http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
5) the claims of responsibility by Osama and Al Qaeda.

WTC7 certainly looked more “like” a controlled demolition than wtc1 and 2. So what? Expert structural engineering reports agree that WTC7 fell in the manner that NIST suggests.

How about you answer a few simple questions for me.
Why would they demolish a building whose collapse was not ostensibly caused by the jet impacts?
Why would they demolish a building which suffered less damage from the WTC1 and 2 collapses than those closer, like wtc 4 and 6?
How did the “pre planted” explosives survive the hours and hours of uncontrolled fires?

Paul.L wrote, "I have posted photos clearly showing that the WTC were not crumbled into dust. You have offered nothing to rebut that."

Then daggett wrote, "I consider this time-wasting pedantry."

Then Paul.L wrote, "I consider almost ALL of the arguments you have put forward as such. Very few had any validity."

Of course, Paul.L would say that, wouldn't he?

I accuse him of being a pedant. Then he accuses me of being a pedant, in turn, and no progress is made.

Why I accuse Paul.L of being a pedant is that he is nit-picking over literal meanings of words I use as shorthand. I use shorthand expressions because I don't have time to spell out every aspect of my case to 100% literal accuracy, and if I did, that would necessitate myself breaking the rules of OLO either literally or in spirit (and that, of course, would provide the lunatic in our midst yet another excuse to stick his nose in again).

Instead of writing,

"The twin towers collapsed to short lengths of steel, with some of the outer lower 6 floors supporting structure is still holding together with 4 out of the 110 floors compacted together and the rest to dust"

I wrote "... the two towers ... collapse(d) to dust ..."

Then Paul.L says,

"Aha! Look at that picture over there.

"I see lengths of steel. Lengths of steel are not dust!

"Daggett must be pulling the wool over our eyes!"

The 9/11 Truth case doesn't insist that every last piece of the twin towers was literally transformed into dust.

Paul.L, if you want to accuse me of pedantry, then show me where and don't just make blanket accusations.

---

Paul.L wrote, "WTC7 certainly looked more 'like' a controlled demolition than wtc1 and 2."

Well, I would say its about time that important detail was acknowledged after all the carrying on about how the twin tower collapses supposedly looked nothing like controlled demolitions.

(tobecontinued)