Dagget,

You demonstrate time and again what an ABSOLUTE moron you are.

For starters, Rivera says “At first I thought “ which means he had second thoughts which corrected his original misconception. Secondly, my point was that you were suggesting ALL of griffins interviewees thought they were hearing bombs going off.

There are NO explosions in the half dozen links you pasted. Not a single flash of light to be seen. And the vast majority of normal people also see no explosions in these images. Only the conspiracy minded or half-smart would suggest otherwise.

In fact, here would be a perfect time for you to involve your audience and ask them what they think they see in these pictures of the collapse of the towers.

You say >> “Of course he didn't literally say that, but either he agrees that there is a significant likelihood that what Lou Cacchioli heard was demolition explosives, in which case the 9/11 Commission should have seriously investigated that possibility, or he doesn't. “

How many times now have you had to agree I didn’t say what you have suggested. It must be at least half a dozen. How about you use MY words as quotes to back up your points, if you can. And stop puting your words in my mouth.

I never implied that because it wasn't captured on camera or because Lou Cacchioli did not see it for himself with his own eyes, that what he heard could not have happened. Again we demonstrate your lack of basic comprehension skills. I don’t doubt what Cachiolli heard. I doubt the conclusions you draw from them. Cachioli didn’t hear three explosive charges going off, he heard three explosive-like sounds which could have been caused by falling elevators, failing steel, exploding transformers and many other things.

Why would the 9/11 commission even bring up explosives if they found no evidence of explosives? Did they investigate whether the planes flown into the towers were cargo jets and not passenger planes? Did they investigate whether a missile hit the pentagon, and where the missing passengers are?

Paul wrote, "... Rivera says 'At first I thought ' which means he had second thoughts which corrected his original misconception."

So where in the interview (original pdf image at http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF) 'correct' his 'original misconception'?

Are you trying to suggest that he didn't hear what to him sounded like a "professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'"?

If that is not what he heard, then why do you think he wouldn't have said in the interview what he did hear (or didn't hear at all as the case may be)?

The interview was held on 10 October 2001, that is almost one one month after the experience he is describing. Why would he have held on to that 'misconception' for all that time, if that's what it was?

I would have thought that the reason that Daniel Rivera would have qualified his testimony with the words "I thought" should have been obvious. At the time the whole world was being told incessantly that the twin towers had been brought down as a consequence of the impact of the planes and the fire. So, of course that is to be expected

It's pretty clear to me that the explosions that Daniel Rivera and 117 other members of the FDNY testified to having witnessed was a controlled demolition.

However, even if that is not accepted, then, as I pointed out above, Rivera's impression was shared by at least two live news commentators at the time and numerous other witnesses. So, there is no sensible reason as to why that possibility should not have been explored by the 9/11 Commission and NIST and here is no sensible reason why their reports should not have taken account of this testimony.

---

Paul wrote, "There are NO explosions in the half dozen links you pasted. Not a single flash of light to be seen."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

So, in Paul's view if bright flashes are not directly visible then what we are witnessing cannot be explosions. I presume Paul's definition of what constitutes an 'explosion' must have come from watching too many B grade war movies.

I think any 'normal' person who has taken the trouble to read this would most likely conclude that Paul will say just about anything to avoid having to concede that he is wrong.

---

Paul complained, "How many times now have you had to agree I didn't say what you have suggested. ..."

If you choose to use verbose overly convoluted language, then I believe that I am perfectly entitled to restate what you say in forms that are more comprehensible to others. If what I write is not what you mean to say, then you are perfectly entitled to correct it.

Paul wrote, "Cachioli(sic) ... heard three explosive-like sounds which could have been caused by falling elevators, failing steel, exploding transformers and many other things."

I am fairly certain that any 'normal' person would be able to appreciate that Lou Cacchioli and 117 other FDNY witnesses would know the difference between the sounds of 'falling elevators' and 'failing steel' on the one hand and the sounds of explosions on the other.

If it happened that at least three transformers in the building had suddenly coincidentally all exploded over such a short duration all due, apparently, to fires caused by aviation fuel having spilt down all that way, then I think, at least we are entitled to an account of how and why that happened.

---

Paul wrote, "Why would the 9/11 commission even bring up explosives if they found no evidence of explosives?"

You have not responded to my earlier point:

I asked where the 9/11 Commission report stated that (in your words) it "found no physical evidence of explosives, no left over RDX, no det cord, no scorched or blast damaged steel, ..."

And I asked, "What concerted effort was ever made to look for this evidence, before it was all removed?"

Dagget,

So you have finally lost it entirely. I’m glad I stuck around otherwise I might have missed it.

You present pictures of the buildings collapsing and then say “there’s the explosions”. I notice you declined to challenge your “audience” as to what “they” see in those pictures. Your like a autistic person seeing animals in ink blots. Where are the explosions Dagget?

If they are so obvious why are you “truthers a rather distinct, and obnoxious minority? Ridiculed even by those on YOUR side of politics?

You say >> “You have not responded to my earlier point:”

As I said earlier Dagget, I consider ALL of your point’s to be pedantry, and since you have not been able to respond to even half of my points, you shouldn’t be surprised I haven’t responded to ALL of your stupidity.

It’s funny that after denying Rivera had second thoughts about the cause of the collapse, you then go on to tell us why he had the second thoughts I described.

Frankly, the matter is irrelevant, since Rivera does not KNOW what caused the sounds, he isn’t able to provide material evidence as to what they were. That is the truthers whole problem, they don’t have any REAL evidence.

Dagget says >> “I presume Paul's definition of what constitutes an 'explosion' must have come from watching too many B grade war movies.”

Sorry what? What do you know about explosives? You don’t have a clue about any of this as we have shown time and again. You thought thermite was an explosive. Its funny that the only time you have ever attempted to demonstrate explosions, you have pointed to flashes of light.

By the way, you have never put together YOUR version of events. Clearly this is because you know it won’t stand up. You refuse to say whether you think explosives or thermite were used, yet you are happy to use the results of both as evidence of demolition.

TBC

CONT,

You say Bush is responsible for 9/11 yet the bombers were in the US training on flight simulators well before Bush became President. Does that make Clinton responsible?

You don’t have the guts to tell me what you think happened on 9/11 because you know, not only will it be wrong, but that I and your “audience” will see through it in 5 seconds flat.

You say >> “If you choose to use verbose overly convoluted language, then I believe that I am perfectly entitled to restate what you say in forms that are more comprehensible to others. If what I write is not what you mean to say, then you are perfectly entitled to correct it.”

1) Show me an overly convoluted passage of mine and I will show you someone who routinely needs to repost in order to correct his appalling grammar. You mangle English in a manner only the truly thick are capable of.
2) You deliberately misstate my points because you are incapable of fashioning your own argument. You have clearly given up on any pretence of being objective and have sunk to a new low of lying to make your points

Finally you say >> I am fairly certain that any 'normal' person would be able to appreciate that Lou Cacchioli and 117 other FDNY witnesses would know the difference between the sounds of 'falling elevators' and 'failing steel' on the one hand and the sounds of explosions on the other”

Fairly certain? Really? Please tell me why dozens of firefighters referred to the sound that “jumpers” who hit the pavement at terminal velocity made, as an explosion?

Just because people used the word explosion to describe something doesn’t mean they were referring to demolition charges. I know that is a difficult concept for you but you'll just have to try and understand.

I wrote (twice):

"If Lou Cacchioli personally did not have 'definitive proof bombs were actually detonated' would Paul at least concede that the 9/11 Commission should have at least have seriously investigated that possibility given that he and 112 (I should have said 118) members of the FDNY many other had clearly heard 'what sounded like bombs' or had seen explosions? ..."

Then Paul wrote:

"The 9/11 commission found no physical evidence of explosives, no left over RDX, no det cord, no scorched or blast damaged steel, and no VIDEO evidence that bombs were exploding. ..."

Then I wrote:

"Where does the report say this, Paul? What concerted effort was ever made to look for this evidence, before it was all removed?"

Then Paul also wrote:

"Why would the 9/11 commission even bring up explosives if they found no evidence of explosives?"

Then I wrote:

"You have not responded to my earlier point:"

"'I asked where the 9/11 Commission report stated that (in your words) it "found no physical evidence of explosives, no left over RDX, no det cord, no scorched or blast damaged steel, ..."

"'And I asked, "What concerted effort was ever made to look for this evidence, before it was all removed?"'"

Then Paul wrote, "As I said earlier Dagget, I consider ALL of your point’s to be pedantry, and since you have not been able to respond to even half of my points, you shouldn’t be surprised I haven’t responded to ALL of your stupidity."

---

So, in effect, Paul has refused to substantiate his justification for the 9/11 Commission not investigating the possibility that the collapses were controlled demolitions as the evidence from a large number or witnesses and a good deal of recorded video images and sounds would suggest.

I think that should make it abundantly clear that Paul does not have, and never did have any intention to seriously debate the topic at hand.

The only possible motivation I see for his lingering for so long on this forum is in order to confuse others.