Paul.L,

I concede that your explanation is simple, but it also needs to be complete.

It needs to take account of the failure of all the supporting structures on every floor of all three buildings, even those which were not touched in any way by the the burning aviation fuel and it needs to explain the near free-fall speed of the collapses, how all of WTC1 and WTC2 were pulverised and how WTC7 fell so cleanly and within its own footprint and how this has never happened before 11 September 2001, and never since .

What nearly every independent engineer and architect expected to have happened was something a lot closer to what we see in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.html or had the towers somehow, against the expectations of the designers, collapsed completely, then something closer to the examples shown at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/collapsecases.html

The only theory which comes remotely close to providing a complete explanation for what we see at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/groundzero.html is the controlled demolition theory.

Paul.L wrote, "These towers were loaded up with explosives, but no one noticed."

In fact, a good many extremely suspicious happenings were noticed prior to and immediately after the 9/11 attacks, including mysterious workmen with large cases coming into the Twin Towers on the weekend of 8 and 9 September prior to Tuesday 11 September.

I suggest, again, you check out the testimony of decorated 9/11 hero and last person out of the twin towers William Rodriguez and at http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1219050.interview_the_untold_story_of_september_11/ and the testimony of Scott Forbes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8

Also, it has been shown again and again that the supporting structures of WTC1 and WTC2 were capable of absorbing the impact of a 767 and still be capable of bearing the weight of the building. The designer of the towers had considered the possibility of a 707 aircraft, which is roughly comparable to a 767, crashing into one of the towers and had concluded that they would be capable of withstanding that impact (see http://911sig.blogspot.com/2007/01/nist-boeing-707-travelling-at-600-mph.html).

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Paul.L wrote: "I wonder how you think it helps your case that a member of the US military believes the conspiracy theories? ..."

Where did I ever claim that the whole case of the 9/11 Truth movement rested on the authority of Colonel Robert Bowman alone?

My point was that many credible people, both military and civilian, and not just Colonel Robert Bowman, reject the official explanation for 9/11. I made that point because a number of people, including Phillip Adams and at least one poster to the forum, have attempted to avoid discussing the evidence by claiming that the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement have been rejected by all credible commentators and analysts.

As I have already asked several times here, please explain to us why you don't think Colonel Bowman and all those others listed at http://www.911truthgroups.org/911Truth101/Step2ProminentSupporters/tabid/633/Default.aspx http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html are credible people?

If we agree that a good many credible people do support the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement, then the evidence of the 9/11 Truth movement should be at least discussed and not dismissed out of hand.

---

CJM, I meant to write that you:

"unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks."

... and not that you:

"unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war."

As you have not questioned the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks anywhere in this forum, then I would consider the first of the above two statements to be accurate.

In regard to the latter, I have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. However, if it was, I certainly I never heard a peep out of you in the forum "Winning the War in Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#45868

---

Paul.L (earlier) wote, "Iraq had WMD even if they did not have them at the time of the invasion."

This totally specious justification for the invasion has been comprehensively refuted in the abovementioned forum "Winning the War in Iraq" and many other places.

Daggett,

Firstly, once the buildings started to fall, there was no stopping them. So we don’t need complicated explanations about why floors that were not burned failed. They failed because 30 then 31, then 32 etc stories smashed into them after accelerating for 3-4m at 9.8m/s/s.

You keep saying the buildings were pulverised, have you ever seen a building collapse before? How do you know it doesn’t look exactly like the WTC1, 2 and 7.

Demolition of buildings by explosives doesn’t pulverise the building either, they seek to bring it down in a controlled manner in manageable pieces. Explosives sever the supports and gravity brings down the building. See here for an explanation on pulverised concrete. http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144446004

>> “Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:
J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm
WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_World_Trade_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_World_Trade_Center
So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder. The Hudson Building “ … took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip “

The free fall stuff is a lie. No one has an accurate idea of exactly how long the building took to collapse, but here are pictures of rubble falling through the air, ahead of the collapsing floors. Ergo, the building must be falling slower than freefall. http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

The “never before in history” nonsense ignores completely the unique construction of the building. No ‘tube in tube’ building over 40 stories has ever been damaged like the WTC. NONE. The reason the building fell mostly within its footprint is intimately related to the construction of the building.

Tell me dagget, why the gov’t would try and ensure the building did fall within its footprint?

TBC

Cont,

It would have been far easier to demolish the buildings without it looking staged. One of the MOST difficult aspects for demolition experts’ bringing down a building isn’t making sure it collapses. It’s making sure it collapses in a controlled manner. If all they needed to do was demolish the building they could use far less explosives and less expensive time delay hardware. What interest would a gov’t prepared to sacrifice thousands of people have in ensuring a controlled demolition? Have a look at the video on this page. http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

Against my better judgement I checked out the story of William Rodriguez, an ex-magician, exposer of faith healers and currently on a highly lucrative world speaking tour. Rodriguez doesn’t understand how people on the ground floor could be burned when the plane crashed 80 stories up. I wonder if anybody ever told him that jet fuel, like everything else, obeys the laws of gravity. Burning jet fuel poured into the elevator shafts and exploded out of anywhere open, including on the ground floor lobby. He has NO evidence of ANYTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.

The 9/11 truth movement are forever moving the goalposts. At one stage they believed that the planes which flew into the WTC1 and 2 were not passenger planes at all. They argued that it was a missile that hit the pentagon. They said that flight 93 was shot down. And there are a hundred other claims, none of which stack up.

I also had a look at the 911 special interest group site. The theoretical tests, based upon a 707 (which is a smaller, slower aircraft) flying into the twin towers, neglected entirely, the consequences of a full load of aviation fuel dumped inside the building. That fuel or more specifically the fires it started, was an essential component of the collapse of WTC1 and 2 http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

No one claimed that the impact alone caused the collapse. Funnily enough, on the picture on this site you can see debris falling, and it has clearly travelled faster than the collapsing floors.

Paul.L wrote, "Firstly, once the buildings started to fall, there was no stopping them. ..."

This is neither an explanation of why the buildings fell in the first place nor why, once they had started to fall, the collapse had to be complete instead of partial and had to occur close to (and no-one claimed at, Paul.L) the speed of a free fall as attested to by incontrovertible video evidence in the case of WTC7 and at least the estimates of eyewitnesses in the case of WTC1 and WTC2.

Paul.L asked, "... have you ever seen a building collapse before?"

Why don't you show me a single building collapse anywhere that was not a controlled demolition and which looks anything like WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?

(From here on, the arguments just get plain silly.)

Paul.L, why don't you take your own advice and apply some "healthy skepticism" to these insane theories you have presented here, whether they have been concocted by yourself or borrowed from someone else?

Just ask youself: If, as the US Government insists, the collapses were unplanned, do you think it would have been:

A) more likely; or

B) less likely

... that the collapse would have been so complete and have fallen so neatly into the respective footprints of the three buildings?

Paul.L wrote, "The 'never before in history' nonsense ignores completely the unique construction of the building. ..."

And why do you continue to ignore my point that the construction of WTC7 was entirely conventional?

The various often mutually contradictory attempts to claim that the twin towers were somehow particularly fragile because the construction was different is comprehensively demolished at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/explanations.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/meltdown.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/meltdownre.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columns.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columnstemps.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columnscollapse.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trusses.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trusseseagar.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/eagarlies.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesfema.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/whatcores.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/femalies.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/corestruct.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/implications.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/officialstory.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/outline.html

The justification for the controlled demoltion theory cann be found at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/explanationsre.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/evidence.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/squibs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/smoothwave.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/mushrooming.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/centered.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/dustcloud.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/pulverization.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/shredding.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/hotspots.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/proofs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/aerialdust.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/freefall.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/airtop.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/dustvolume.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/disintegration.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/conclusion.html

The page at which the above presentation commences is "The World Trade Center Demolition
Exposing the fraud of the government's story" at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html

(tobecontinued)

I think my initial comment that poor old James seems obsessed by this "9/11 Truth" crap was pretty apposite, after wading through a couple of the URL's that constitute the major part of what he considers to be evidence for his conspiracy theories.

<< ...apply some "healthy skepticism" to these insane theories you have presented here, whether they have been concocted by yourself or borrowed from someone else >>

Pot, meet kettle. I don't think it's Paul's arguments that are "insane" here. However, it's nice to see that James has someone who's willing to play with him according to his rules.

I'm going bush for a week or so, so I'll leave you chaps to it. Do have a lovely time.