Paul.L,

I note that you have still not answered the question which I put to you twice and therefore have failed to acknowledged the logical absurdity of your own implied positions that it is more likely that the twin towers and WTC7 would have collapsed so symmetrically and neatly if it had not been a planned controlled demolition.

---

What is far more bizarre than anything I have written is the official explanation for the 9/11 attack which, amongst other things, as I said, rejects the laws of physics and current structural engineering knowledge.

It is odd that you don't also find Commander-in-Chief George Bush's seemingly serene behaviour, as the rest of the country was in turmoil for 20 minutes after he had admitted knowing that he had learnt of the initial attack had and five minutes ofter he had been informed of the second attack occurred, bizarre.

It is bizarre to imagine, as depicted in the Movie "United 93" that neither the President nor the Vice President could be reached for all the time after the first of the hijackings was reported at 9.19am. It is bizarre to imagine that it was not possible for the pilots of United Airlines Flight 93 could not have been warned of the other hijackings and the attack on the first World trade Center Tower at 8.46am before the terrorists/patsies in their own flight acted at 9.15am.

All this can be confirmed by viewing the time line of the 9/11 attacks at http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_day_of_9_11_events http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

It is also bizarre that absolutely no-one was found to be at fault for the most spectacular and complete failure of the most formidable national defence system on this planet that occurred on 11 September 2001.

---

As I said, I can manage with or without your participation in this forum. I know that other people are reading this even if they don't post.

Even to the extent that this forum has been deliberately spoilt by trolls I think it remains a useful resource even if no-one else contributes from now on.

You really are sad.

I've said numerous times that I think that the manner of the collapses of the three buildings on 9/11 does not provide a case for your ridiculous notions.

The is "it more likely or less likely" is just stupidity on your behalf. The likelihood of an event occuring in a particular manner is not evidence of anything. How likely is it that someone wins the lotto? ! in 500,000,000. Yet it happens. How likely is it that the US gov't would deliberately kill thousands of its own citizens to further its own ends, but be so honest that they would actually admit that there were no WMD's left in Iraq?

I see you refused to answer my question. I assume its because you can't really answer it. Which isn't surprising.

Paul.L wrote, "You really are sad.".

Don't you think there has been more than enough ad hominem attacks by now?

How about just addressing the arguments and looking at the evidence?

---

You attempted to refute my argument that the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7 had to be controlled demolitions by claiming that no building as tall as the twin towers had yet been demolished in that way.

My simple point was that your argument that it would be so difficult to achieve such symmetric and neat collapses using planned demolition then that would surely be even more applicable to unplanned collapses.

Why is that "stupidity"?

---

Paul.L wrote, "I see you refused to answer my question. I assume its because you can't really answer it. Which isn't surprising."

The fact that I don't immediately follow each and every rabbit you set free down all the burrows doesn't mean that I am incapable of eventually doing so.

I would suggest to you that there are a good many more of my own arguments of my own that you have failed to respond to.

I don't consider your argument about WMD's in Iraq:

"How likely is it that the US gov't would deliberately kill thousands of its own citizens to further its own ends, but be so honest that they would actually admit that there were no WMD's left in Iraq?"

... to be a serious argument. The WMD lie had well and truly served its purpose by the time the U.S. was finally forced to admit there were no WMD's. That they admitted that at that point, rather than take all the political risks entailed in planting evidence to 'prove' that the WMD program did exist, is a strange concept of 'honesty' IMHO.

They lied through there teeth over the Iraq War and they lied through their teeth over the September 11 attacks.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The fact is that the evidence that you have largely avoided discussing points overwhelmingly to the likelihood that senior figures in U.S. administration did indeed plan to murder thousands of their own citizens. The only way that they can possibly hope to clear themselves of any suspicion of having committed that crime is for a proper enquiry to be held and for all of the evidence that has been suppressed by the Bush administration, including those airport surveillance tapes demanded by Ellen Mariani be released.

---

Paul.L wrote, "Does it never strike you as ironic that people believe just as fervently in UFO's or fairies. Has it occurred to you that there is NO WAY of convincing those people that UFO's and fairies don't exist, even though they are clearly NUTS."

Of course one can't prove that "UFO's and fairies don't exist", but that is beside the point. There is no evidence of which I am aware that proves their existence.

In regard to the 9/11 attacks, there is abundant evidence that proves the official explanation cannot possibly be true, or that the probability against it being true is so extremely high that, for all practical purposes it has to be discounted.

You say >> "They lied through there teeth over the Iraq War and they lied through their teeth over the September 11 attacks."

And yet they told the truth about something which damaged them badly. If they could have found WMD in Iraq,

1) Bush would have been a hero, his place in history assured
2) Support for the war would have stayed higher for longer
3) The case against Iran would be that much stronger.
4) American policy of preemptive intervention would have prevailed

There are one hundred reasons for "finding" WMDs in Iraq. On the against side, being found out. If we follow through with your hypothesis that the US has unlimited capability and can keep a massive conspiracy secret, why would they come clean?

There was no real upside, and the downside was spectacularly bad.

By the way, I noted that you were sad because if you go back over the posts we have discussed ad nauseam your question about "what was more likely". Secondly I only put one question to you and you avoided it. You put two hundred and then get huffy when I neglect to respond to all of them.

Paul.L,

If they had 'found' WMD's in Iraq and not had allowed the WMD's to be independently verified by UN inspectors, who, apart from you, would have believed them?

---

Paul.L, "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?"

This is garbage! Many witnesses testified that they heard explosions. I've seen firemen at the scene on a YouTube broadcast saying so.

You will have to show me what you mean when you say "A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name?"

I have heard them name Thermite on a number of occasions. Can you show me where that is disputed?