(continuedfromabove)

The presentation "NIST's WTC Investigation: Mockery of Science" at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/index.html and the accompanying article "Building a Better Mirage NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century" at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html looks very useful although I haven't had time to look at it myself.

I would ask Paul.L: If a complete and at least equally simple explanation, which shows how the towers could have collapsed as they did without the assistance of explosives, exists, then wouldn't you suppose that it could be rendered as lucidly as the above presentations?

If so, then where do you suppose that that presentation is to be found?

Paul.L wrote, "It would have been far easier to demolish the buildings without it looking staged," and before that, "... why the gov’t would try and ensure the building did fall within its footprint? ..."

Why not use use a little imagination, Paul.L? If explosives had been employed, but the demolition had been less complete, and there had been twisted steel beams and smashed concrete lying everywhere, do you think it woud have been

A) easier, or

B) harder

... to conceal the evidence of the crime?

The video at http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm is a joke.

Paul.L, had you noticed in the simulation of the 'pancake' collapse theory that for the theory to have worked, the central supporting column had to be left behind as the 'pancakes' successively fell faster and faster under the impact weight of the cumulative falling 'pancakes' from above?

Now what do you suppose would have happened to the central column after the collapse? Do you think it would have:

A) stood standing, of

B) buckled and twisted under its own weight and fallen over?

In either case, don't you think some more substantial and more intact remnants of that column would have been found at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/groundzero.html

?

So, where are they?

Daggett,

Do you even hear what you are saying? They brought the building down like a controlled demolition to HIDE the evidence. They made it look like it was planned, to avoid any evidence of it being planned. Don't you understand how insane that is?

Once the collapse had started, with thousands of tons of building smashing onto each floor, it was not going to stop. No partial collapse was going to happen because the weight smashing into the floor below increased every time another floor fell.

I’m glad you finally accepted that the buildings were not falling at freefall speed. I wonder what speed you imagine a building falling under the weight of gravity falls though? How long do you imagine it takes thirty stories of steel and concrete falling 3-4 metres to smash a floor?

I have some pictures for you of these so called pulverised buildings. http://www.ridgewoodcameraclub.org/photo_gallery/WTCdestruction1.jpg
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/images/WTC1&2Taken9-13-2001image118.jpg
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/wtc-rubble.jpg

You ask me whats more likely? Is it more likely that these buildings, two of them 3 times higher than any building ever demolished before, were brought down by chemical or explosives that nobody heard, nobody saw, and of which no traces were left, by people nobody saw. A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name? And both began to collapse at the exact point of impact?

You’re saying that things are getting silly? That really is the pot calling the kettle black.

Its funny, the photograph you posted shows the remnant of the central core, as well as large pieces of the exterior structure. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/groundzero.html

I’m not going any further with this, because there are only so many ways you can explain the truth. And you just don’t want to believe it. It fits neatly with your world view that the US gov’t is the ultimate source of all the world’s problems. It wouldn’t matter what evidence I put before you, you’d prefer to believe the bizarre allegations of a bunch of fruit loops, over peer reviewed science.

You clearly are very easily led. UFO's and ghosts beware. Dagget is on the prowl.

I note that that fine upstanding polemicist, scholar and Queensland Greens Party activist CJ Moron has informed us that he is going to deprive us of his inspired and enlightened presence for a "a week or so".

Let's hope that when he returns he will finally deign to inform the rest of us, how he just happens to know that Colonel Bowman, US Greens Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader, William Christisen, Gore Vidal, Daniel Ellsberg, etc, etc, etc, etc, are all so wrong about this.

Or would he consider that "play(ing) with (me) according to (my own) rules"?

I ask people to look at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/stfires.html

We see what looks like fires in both towers which appeared to have dwindled and lacked visible flames moments before collapse.

Here's a transcript of a portion of the radio communication with Chief Oreo Palmer who reached the 78th floor of the South Tower (WTC2):

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#palmer
Battalion 7 Chief: Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-40 Code Ones.
...
Ladder 15: Floor 78?

Battalion 7 Chief: Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.
...
Battalion 7 Chief: I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam, stairway to knock down two fires. We have house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay.

It just defies logic and the imagination that scene in which the firemen present clearly believed that the situation to be well under control could have been turned moments later into http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/explosion.html

... unless there were explosives planted.

I will restate more correctly the last two paragrapsh of the previous post:

It just defies logic and the imagination that that scene, in which the firemen present clearly believed the situation to be well under control, could have been turned moments later into http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/explosion.html

... unless there were explosives planted.

---

Firstly, Paul.L, you seem to have dodged a very simple question. I will ask it again:

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, "I’m not going any further with this, ..."

Suit yourself. This discussion can continue with or without you.

Paul.L wrote, "Do you even hear what you are saying? ..."

The point I was trying to make seems to have gone right over your head.

Obviously having the buildings collapse in a way the looks like controlled demolition is evidence that suggests that there was a controlled demolition. My point still stands that they needed to do that in order to reduce the likelihood that other, far more incontrovertible evidence of the crime would have subsequently been recovered as investigators would have searched through the twisted mangled steel beams and girders and broken concrete in order to understand how the buildings collapsed.

Also, it seems less likely that such a collapse would have been anywhere near as psychologiclly devastating as the actual collapses which occurred.

So, it makes perfect sense to me that the people who planned the attacks would have demolished the buildings in the way that they did.

(So much more I could add, but I need to call it a night.)

Another discussion on 9/11 can be found in article "16 May 2008,
Unanswered 9/11 questions" of 16 May 2008 at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2240510.htm