Dagget,

You say >> So, if we have photos of red hot steel 7 weeks after 11 September, it seems highly likely to me that there would have been some substance to the eyewitness accounts (one of which was referred to above) of there being pools of molten steel under the wreckage immediately after the attack.

You just don't have a clue do you. There is NO WAY that steel is still red hot 7 weeks after 9/11, because of heat transferred on the day of the collapse. The rubble piles were on fire for weeks after the collapse. That is what caused the steel to be red hot.

How is it that all of this molten steel was not photographed when it was finally removed from the site? I mean it didn't reform into 'I' beams after it cooled down did it? Like the guy in the terminator.

Why have you provided no evidence of molten steel except hearsay. And I went back to the conspiracy site you posted above and the first witness Peter Tully, saw molten metal a MONTH AFTER the collapse.

If you respond to ONE question from this post, then let it be this. How did they cut all the exterior columns with thermite, without any of the thermite or the molten metal spewing out everywhere?

They somehow cut them without there being any evidence of their being cut on the outside. Interesting.

BTW Disinformation? You must be joking. I think it might be a quicker task to idenitfy those people who you believe aren't part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

(Whatever else I have written I certainly concur with Paul.L's observations about the easily amused and people who prefer to snipe from the sidelines and not take a stance of their own.)

---

Paul.L wrote: "No one actually saw any explosions ..."

"That's when it went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down."

Note the use of the word 'see', Paul.L.

Also check out the frame at 7.00 into the broadcast "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw after the fuel would surely have burnt out.

What is the bright orange flash, if not an explosion?

Then check out the frame at 09.59 at the start of the collapse of one of the towers. What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?

Then check out :South Tower Coming Down" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&NR=1

Here is some of what I have transcribed of reporters narratives from the YouTube Broadcast "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

"... and every few minutes, you will hear a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion ..."

"When you ... down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions, going off every 15 or 20 minutes."

"There's a real sense of caution here on the part of police. I spoke to some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center, aside from the ones that made by the impact of the plane with the building may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so the fear is that there may have been some explosive devices planted in the building or in the adjacent area and that's why they are being so cautious."

Paul.L wrote: "That's it. Statements of surprise ..."

No, that's not 'it'.

Below is some of (tobecontinued...)

(...continuedfromabove) the recorded testimony of firefighters who say they heard explosions in http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf :

"... I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions..." - Richard Banaciski

"I'd say we were in the 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor, or something like that, and a few of the guys were lying wiped out on the floor, you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the--it felt like there was an explosion above us..." - Brian Becker

"We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide." - Richard Boeri

"We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center." - Gregg Brady

"... we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." - Edward Cachia

As I wrote, no-one should assume that just because Paul.L says that the evidence does not exist, that it doesn't exist. I therefore suggest that people look for themselves and not take Paul.L's word for it.

The above is far from a complete expose of all the illogicalities and denial of evidence that clearly does exist in Paul.L's posts.

Paul.L, before I proceed to get my head around the technical arguments about thermite/thermate, I would need some reassurance that what I write will not go in one ear and out the other.

An acknowledgement that you were wrong to assert that very strong evidence of explosions does not exist would go some way towards assuring me that I am not having a conversation with the deaf.

I have waded through this link that daggett posted, "The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi".

What I find so striking about it, as one who is not yet well 'read in' to this whole subject, is the prevalence of 'argument by abuse' as a tactic adopted by those (in this particular case Matt Taibbi) seemingly opposed to the very idea of calling the official story into question.

Argument by abuse has certainly so far been a characteristic of many posts to this thread on OLO.

I can only wonder why such posters feel so threatened by such questioning. Is it that some status they imagine themselves to have in the eyes of OLO viewers will be diminished if the argument that explanation of some of the events of 9/11 prove to be significantly different to the official record is sustained?

For me, the maintaining of an open mind as to what explanations really lie behind the events of 9/11 is made easy when it is remembered that the entire US electoral process is now conducted electronically, and thus, by definition, without the possibility of effective audit or independent scrutiny.

Elections are about power, and there are some persons who will stop at nothing to obtain power.

I have posted this link earlier in this thread, but I think it may have been effectively buried amongst other links. It is about the US electronic voting system. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures illustrating aspects of that eminently fraudable system: http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm . One at least relates to 9/11.

If it is possible to ensure malleable persons get declared to have been elected, it is but one more step for those who display such apparent 'knowledgibility' of the electoral process to lean upon what are effectively their own creatures to then make desired appointments of officials in the apparatus of government: it would be from among such that the doers of dirty work would come.

E pluribus dud 'em.

Paul.L (26/10/08) defended the US government’s plausibility on the 9/11 incident by suggesting that the US demonstrated willingness to admit it was mistaken in alleging the presence of WMDs in Iraq. He suggested that the US could have simply planted the WMDs to be found by the weapons inspectors in order to retain a motive to invade Iraq. He argued plausibly that planting WMDs in Iraq would have been far easier than organising 9/11 to look like a Muslim conspiracy.

Then again, you might consider that, to better retrieve its reputation and retain the right to invade Iraq, the US ‘bully’ also needed to become a‘victim’. Muslim attacks on the US could give it this status.

But the 9/11 event actually achieved so much more than simply justifying invasion of Iraq; it created a completely new paradigm. The remarkable, cinematic destruction of 9/11, plus the explanation quickly supplied by the US government, convinced the public and much of the world, not only of the need to invade Iraq, but of the need to jettison important elements of democracy. In this paradigm, any Muslim nation would have difficulty in asserting a right to manage its own affairs if the ‘international community, the US, and global commerce, deemed it to be harbouring terrorists.

One could point to growing US debt post 1973 and erosion of the formerly glorious energy and material endowments that underpinned its giant economy and the credo of manifest destiny. The US is struggling unsuccessfully to maintain its post-WW2 hegemony and domestic harmony. It does not seem impossible that some mad part of the regime could have resorted to stage-managing world perception in order to bolster position.

On one thing we are all in agreement: 9/11 required an elaborate conspiracy and complex engineering - by some agency - so bold that it is almost hard to believe the event was possible.

Dagget,

The you tube video “Total proof that bombs were planted” is the worst I’ve yet come across. They have deliberately melded quotes and events out of context. For example when the firefighter says clear out there is a bomb in the building, they are at bomb hoax at Stuyvesant high school 5 blocks away from the WTC. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

Of the 118 witnesses you are referring to, (which comes from Graeme McQueens paper ) http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
what you don’t realize is that NONE of them believed they were experiencing actual bombs. The quotes are ALL taken out of context. Of the 31 first responders (fireman and the like) who used the word ‘bomb’, 30 are referring to the collapse of the buildings, not bombs. Of the 81 who used the term ‘explosions’ over half are again referring to the collapse. NOT ONE of these people actually believed they had seen or heard bombs. See here for the extent that these nuts will go to, deliberately misleading the viewer/reader http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

Here is a building being demolished. Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg

Compare this with the close up of the twin towers collapse, which clearly collapses, starting at the impact point, one floor at a time. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA

In any case, in a 100 story office building there are a lot of things which can explode, Transformers, photocopyers, diesel generators UPS’s. Furthermore 16 first responders referred to the sound of jumpers hitting the pavement as like a bomb going off.

Do me a favour, if you watch one of these links make it this one. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

You say >> “What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?”

You really are exposing your total lack of understanding of engineering here. Explosions don’t PUSH buildings 500,000 tonne buildings, and thermite sure as hell doesn’t either. If the supports collapse on one side, and not on the other, the building will lean a little in that direction.