Pericles,you can start with Prof David Chandler's physics analysis of the absolute freefall speeds attained in Building 7 of the WTC.How do you explain concrete and steel columns failing simulataneously,with the building coming down in it's own footprint and offering no resistance to gravity?

How do you explain a few random fires causing total dis-memberment of a 486 m building in 6.5 sec ?

Start with the physics Pericles and then we shall move to the chemistry.

Before we start embarking upon yet another string of speculations in pursuit of that $10,000 Arjay, can we go back and establish some groundrules.

What will be your standard of proof?

Plucking random gobbets from conspiracy web sites doesn't work for me. Nor do articles published without the courtesy of proper peer review.

The output from formally assembled and conducted panels of investigation, however, will do it for me.

Are you prepared to accept any such findings? If not, why not?

If you have alternative sources of information, perhaps you should present their credentials, so that we can examine their standing as competent authorities.

If you are offering eye-witness testimony that relates to explosives, for example, references to "popping sounds" that were "just like explosions" would not be regarded as being particularly informative.

daggett, what exactly are you doing here? Aren't we having this very same discussion on another thread?

>>I challenge you to ...find one thing I have ever written anywhere on the 'Net before September 2008 in which questions the Official account of 9/11.<<

To save me the bother of wading through the dross, perhaps you could point me to anything you wrote that accepts the official version.

That will enable us to see what it was that changed your mind.

Pericles asks of Arjay. "Are you prepared to accept any such findings? If not, why not?"

A good reason for Arjay to reject the findings of NIST is (as we must have pointed out to you on almost innumerable past occasions) that they fail to explain a great deal of eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and recorded evidence and cite almost none of their own to justify their own conclusions. That evidence which is cited, such as photos and eyewitness testimony fail to subsantiate their conclusions, such as that fires, capable of causing the structural failure that occurred, raged on the floors for the necessary three or more hours.

This has been shown in "The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009) by David Ray Griffin.

If you want to win the bet, Pericles, all you need do is show, to the contrary, how fire alone fed by the estimated available fuel and ventilation within WTC 7 could account for all that has been observed of the 'collapse' of WTC 7 in a way that is consistent with our knowledge of the laws of physics as Arjay and I have asked.

If that has all been explained in those NIST reports as you maintain they have, then finding that explanation and reproducing it should be dead easy.

Pericles as David Chandler says,this is baisic junior high school physics.see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0&feature=related

Pericles as David Chandler says,this is baisic junior high school physics.see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0&feature=related

As daggett said previously it was absolute freefall for 2.5 sec and this is impossible since random fires cannot cause steel and concrete to fail simultaneously like a controlled demolition situation.

Now Chandler on this video explains the flaws in NIST's farce of a report.Perhaps you could explain the flaws in Chandler's analysis?

That doesn't actually answer the question, daggett.

>>A good reason for Arjay to reject the findings of NIST is (as we must have pointed out to you on almost innumerable past occasions) that they fail to explain a great deal of eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and recorded evidence and cite almost none of their own to justify their own conclusions.<<

I asked, "What would you accept as "disproof", Arjay? Who would decide whether explosives were or were not used to bring down the building?"

All you are doing - in fact, all you ever do - is repeat the same old vague assertions, that have the single unifying characteristic that they are too insubstantial to either support or refute.

In the meantime, you consistently avoid direct questions.

On the topic of your sudden conversion to conspiracy theory, you claim there is not "one thing I have ever written anywhere on the 'Net before September 2008 in which questions the Official account of 9/11."

Against which, of course, there is the fact that you didn't write anything in favour of it either.

The point being that you used this as a defence against your predilection for conspiracy theory over simple, observable facts. Which conclusion obviously stands.

Face it, daggett, you're just using this forum for self-aggrandizement, painting yourself in the colours of "truth-seeker". When in fact all you are doing is peddling someone else's ideas to which - for reasons best known to yourself - you find attractive.

The fact that they are arrant nonsense doesn't seem to phase you one bit.