(continuedfromabove)

Pericles has not proven that it would have been impossible for a group of men, seeming to others to have an entirely different purpose, to have, with the cooperation of the buildings' management and security, gained the necessary access to plant whatever explosives were necessary to bring down WTC 7.

If, for argument's sake, that scenario had been thoroughly investigated and testimony from all available people working in and around WTC 7 had been sought and the witnesses cross-examined and all the evidence had been carefully considered and it had been conclusively established that no means for anyone to have planted the explosives had existed, and no other physical evidence supported the controlled demolition hypothesis, then that hypothesis would have to be excluded.

However, most suspiciously, that has not been attempted. The physical evidence that could have proved or disproved the hypothesis, namely the building debris, was nearly all removed, and what little that was not removed (mostly structural steel damaged and deformed obviously by heat far more intense than what could have been caused by fire alone) was not even considered by NIST in its report.

I think, given the absence of any other hypothesis that was remotely possible, and given this highly suspicious behaviour, we should be entitled to conclude that it was a controlled demolition.

However, Pericles does not have to accept that.

But why can't he at least accept the necessity for a new and proper investigation of the 'collapses' as called for by (currently) 1058 qualified architects and engineers (http://ae911truth.org) including Jan Utzon (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/163 http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html), the son of the late Joern Utzon, designer of the Sydney Opera House?

I have no problem with your maths, Arjay.

>>I stand by my maths since they are derivatives of yr 10 physics formulas pertaining to distance and velocity.<<

I haven't checked it, because in the light of the parts that we can actually agree on, it becomes irrelevant.

Which brings us to your understanding of fire. Which I also have no problems with.

>>Fire Pericles is an organic process,it weakens a building non-uniformily<<

Which is pretty much the point that our New York Fire Chief (retired) makes in his summary of WTC7's collapse.

"The first thing to fail was the east side interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse on the roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in indicating core column failure and than the exterior frame started to descend, but there were large belt trusses around the entire building between the 22nd to 24th floors. There could have been columns failing at different times below these belt trusses but these trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower columns had failed."

(I have Arthur Scheuerman's "fireman's view" in document form only, I'm afraid - it appeared as a blog post that doesn't respond to the original address I found it on - sorry)

His main point, in case you missed it, is that fire is an organic process, it weakens a building non-uniformily.

Now, where have I heard that before?

You are hilarious Pericles.How can you write this rubbish and keep straight face? Durgh."I haven't check it( meaning the maths)because in the light of the parts that wwe actually agree on,it becomes irrelevant." Upon which parts do we agree? Tis is gooblede-gook Pericles.Did you not do year 10 maths or science?

" The first to go were the interior columns....." WTC Building 7 had the classical crimp at in the middle in which the core columns are blown first to make the structure fall in on itself,this is why the service centre at the top was the first to go.

We seem to have a comprehension problem here from Pericles.Structures of any description,do not fail similtaneously in such a sequential fashion,without some sort of intervention.As Richard Gage has said,buildings that are compromised organically by fire fall over,not into their own footprint.That is the stark reality glaring you in the face Pericles which you fail to address,without even mentioning the maths and physics which seems to escape you also.

Well, y'know Arjay, it was quite a long time ago.

>>Did you not do year 10 maths or science?<<

They've probably changed the rules a lot since I was at school.

But that isn't really the point, is it?

The way I see it, when a New York Fire Chief explains it to me one way, and you explain it to me a different way, there's not a great deal of difficulty making a choice as to whom to believe.

I'm sure you understand that. Doesn't need maths or science, really.

Or perhaps I'm doing you a grave disservice, Arjay.

Perhaps, after you did Year 10 (both maths, and science; good for you!), you went on to become a Fire Chief in New York City, and learned all about what fire does to buildings in order to make them collapse?

If so, I'll simply leave you and Arthur Scheuerman to fight it out between you.

Was Richard Gage a fireman, too?

You have shot yourself in the foot yet again Pericles."Who is Richard Gage?" Now some time ago you informed me that you actually did an extensive examination of http://ae911truth.org/ and found it to be fallacious.Richard Gage is the Architect who founded this organisation and is prominent in most of the literature, esp Blueprint for Truth.

You have no credibility.

I am interested to have learnt that Pericles has claimed to have extensively examined the material on http://ae911truth.org

I, for one, would certainly be most interested to learn what on http://ae911truth.org Pericles found to be fallacious and why.