(continuedfromabove)... Do you imagine that if William Rodriguez could possibly have convinced himself that all the fires, explosions and destruction he witnessed was all due to aviation fuel (i.e kerosene) having spilled down 90 floors, he would not be a Republican politician today?

Paul.L concludes his dismissal of Rodriguez with a familiarly shrill, "... He has NO evidence of ANYTHING. NOTHING AT ALL."

Yeah, right, Paul.L.

So are you still insisting that the only person in all of New Your City who does not accept the Official Conspiracy Theory is John Schroeder?

---

amoeba, thanks for you help.

Your clear explanations of the evidence of the controlled demolition of WTC 7 should have well confirmed my allegation that Paul.L was abusing his authority as an engineer and relative mastery of this field in order to mislead others.

I think it's pretty clear by now that Paul.L's motives are not, and never have been genuine in this discussion. If you are able to read his contributions to other discussions ("Winning the War in Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#43894 "Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121#45929) you will find that he is an uncritical apologist for each and every crime that the US Government has committed since the end of the Second World War and a strident advocate of the free market extremism that has got the US and so much of Australia into the strife they are in today.

It is hard to conceive that all this, combined with Paul.L's tenacious persistence on this forum to in denying the overwhelming evidence, that he couldn't possibly have failed to understand, is a coincidence.

Whether or not Paul.L succeeds in his goal of having the last word in this discussion, his sophistry and outright dishonesty should be apparent to any critical and open-minded visitor who carefully reads through the posts.

Dagget,

As I said, MORON. I continually show how little grasp you have of this subject and you just pretend it hasn't happened.

I'm not interested in debating this with you anymore as its like trying to explain colour to a blind man. The vast majority of the time you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Worse, you have called me a liar in virtually every post lately; one time too many.

Let me let you in on a secret. No one is reading this besides you and me, you sad little man. And you should be pleased about that as I have totally exposed your lack of understanding of this subject. So go somewhere else if you want an audience. I won't be responding to any more of your posts, so bait me if you want, if it makes you feel good, but it won't work.

Paul.L

Re Firefighters.

Once again we see you putting time into side issues without addressing the main points. You chastised me for linking you to their site without telling exactly what to look for there. I did however copy and paste two sections of interest. What more do you want? You made no comment on the issues they raised. How about commenting now, it is not too late – they are still there.

Explosions

You said: “I watched the Barry Jennings interview. How do we know that the damage to the building he experienced wasn’t caused by the collapse of the south tower?”

If you paid attention to Jenning’s words you would know that he made it clear that the explosion which trapped him in WTC7 occurred before either of the towers came down. This contradicts the NIST report about his testimony and thus identifies another NIST discrepancy. Jennings account is corroborated by the other person, Michael Hess, who was trapped by the explosion. Who you will believe of course is your choice. If NIST lies about explosives of course they are likely to lie about anything else to suit their story

You also said: “Why were “they” exploding charges hours before the building was to collapse?”

It is perfectly clear that in controlled demolitions they do not do the whole job at once. It is normal to work for weeks, weakening the building using oxy torches and the like. It is also usual to set off some preliminary charges at intervals prior to the coup de grace. The video you linked to makes this perfectly clear. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg. There seems to be no particular reason why these preliminary charges must be set off just seconds before the main charges. Why not minutes? Why not hours. In fact if you were trying to avoid giving the appearance of a controlled demolition, do you not think it would be a very good idea to set off some charges at random times well before the main event? It would also be a good idea to use means to weaken columns which were silent, as appears to have been the case in the towers, where we saw molten iron or steel flowing out just a few minutes before collapse. This occurred shortly after a white hot area was noticed and discussed by NIST. We all know that ordinary fires cannot make anything white hot, don’t we, but thermite does.

The disjointed timeline of events on 9/11 at WTC7 seems to need a lot of explaining.
http://bushstole04.com/911/wtc7_empty.htm

Re the video of an explosion I linked to, you say: “Your “You tube” video had no context; we don’t know when or where it was taking place.”

As it happens someone else has looked into this and has determined the time and place with adequate accuracy.
http://www.crono911.net/docs/WTC7Explosion.pdf

You asked how I know NIST is lying. I gave a response to that previously but you failed to comment on it. I will repeat it for your convenience. This is actually the third time that I have issued you this challenge. I wonder if you will ever respond

NIST claims that the fall of the girder running north from column 79 on the 13th floor initiated the collapse of WTC7. This girder supported part of the floor in the north east corner. The NIST site provides a photograph taken on the 12th storey showing where this girder was supported by column 79. It is perfectly obvious in that photograph that there were beams running west and south of column 79 which would have provided horizontal support to the column even if the girder running north had fallen. So how can the NIST explanation possibly be correct? If this very stout column remained supported in two directions at right angles, how could it possibly buckle?

I look forward to hearing you address this issue. If you do not do so but continue to focus on minor issues I will cease this correspondence, knowing your purpose is not to learn but to confuse.

Paul.L,

So it's acceptable for you to insult myself, others on this forum who express agreement with me and many of the heroes and victims of 9/11 -- even those who are dying -- but it's not acceptable for me to point out your won dishonesty?

---

Paul.L wrote, "Let me let you in on a secret. No one is reading this besides you and me, ..."

Funny that Paul.L said something similar over a month and a half ago on 25 October:

"I see, dagget, you are now conducting a conversation with yourself..."

... but since then, you have posted 63 posts to a forum that absolutely no-one, but you and me, are apparently paying any attention to.

In fact, it seems evident to me that quite a few others are watching this forum. This would include other fellow deniers who have already run away with their tails between their legs, waiting for a suitable moment in which they can redeem their wounded pride.

---

It's interesting that after Paul.L so strenuously disputed the accuracy of David Chandler's measurements, he ended up effectively conceding that they had to be right, when he wrote on 8 December:

"The NIST report of the building collapse clearly shows that during the period in question (ie the period Chandler has identified as being freefall) the resistance offered by the building to the collapse was almost insignificant. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf page 40
Therefore the collapse as detailed by NIST, would have been close to freefall for a short period (as much as 7 or 8 stories)"

---

Anyway, even if Paul.L is no longer able to bring himself to further 'debate' the topic with me, it will be interesting to see if he is able finally to bring himself to rise to amoeba's challenge.

As far as I can tell amoeba has not yet used any language towards Paul.L that could be construed in any way as confronting.