WELL SAID, Paul.L.

Keep it up - both of you.

Paul.L, your response to the eyewitness accounts is nothing more than further time-wasting sophistry combined with I consider at least one inexcusable ad hominem attack.

So what if John Schroeder got some of his recollections mixed up? They clearly corroborate with a whole lot of other eyewitness accounts which confirm the controlled demolition theory.

Here are some firefighters talking shortly after the collapse. I am sure that this broadcast (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow) will already be familiar to many:

1st firefighter: "We made it outside. We made it about ablock ... "

2nd firefighter: "We made it at least two blocks, and we started running."

1st firefighter: (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds) "Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh ..."

2nd firefighter: (making roughly similar gesture with clenched fist) "Floor by floor they started popping out."

1st firefighter: "It was as if they had detonators ... "

2nd firefighter: "Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down."

1st firefighter:"...planned to take down the whole building." (gestures with hands again to mimic succession of descending explosions in synch with sounds) "Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom"

2nd firefighter: "All the way down. I was watching it and running."

There were two other firefighters in that group who clearly accepted the veracity of what was said.

---

Paul.L, you have failed to show where any of the quotes I have given have been taken out of context. All you have done is quoted Graeme McQueen out of context in order to misconstrue him.

If so many firefighters had been misrepresented by Graeme McQueen, why haven't they stepped forward to say so?

---

Paul.L wrote, "... building demolition occur with a SET sequence of initiations."

As I said the "SET sequence of initiations" can be in any order that the person setting up the demoliton chooses.

As it happens, Matthys Levy, author of "Why buildings fall down" (1998) happens to think that the Twin Tower collapses were controlled demolitions and European demolition expert Danny Jowenko beleives that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc)

Paul.L wrote, "I notice you didn’t respond to"

"1) the video which EXPOSES the LIES and the LIARS ..."

When you quote from that video on this forum I will respond.

Paul.L continued, "2) my point that building aren't pushed anywhere by explosive cutting charges or thermite."

I was referring to the frame at 09.59 of "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw.

It shows clearly the walls of one of the towers suddenly being pushed out in both directions at an explosive speed at the initiation of the collapse. Whether this was caused by thermite or something else is beside the point.

Also you have still dodged responding to the following:

Paul.L, I note you failed to comment on the explosion as evidenced by a large bright orange flash partially obscured by black smoke shown at 7:00 minutes into the abovementioned broadcast at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw , long after all of the fuel should have burnt. Curiously that explosion occurred at the precise moment and precise location that the tower began to collapse.

How do you plan to explain away this?

Paul.L continued, "3) my point about the missing 'molten steel' and why no one saw any cooled puddles of steel?"

How do you know that nobody saw "any cooled puddles of steel?"

Paul.L continued, "4) my point about how the exterior beams were cut without the hundreds of cameras catching it."

Can't find it. You will have to post it again or show me where it is.

As for the video, "Absolute Proof", I don't justify what they seem to have done. If they did it intentionally, then I think it was a dumb thing to do. In any case, how they would have expected not to be caught out is beyond me.

---

Thanks FG and wallumi for the most interesting links about vote rigging in the U.S. It's a wonder that both of you have not also been denounced as "conspiracy nuts" for doubting the good intentions of those charged with running the U.S. Presidential ballots.

Dagget

I know YOU are impressed by the fact that PERSON A or PERSON B believes in the conspiracy, but it is of absolutely no relevance to me or the issue. There are plenty of BOOBs out there who believe in UFO’s and fairies who have real jobs and titles, its NOT NEWS.

Graeme McQueen used the quotes from the firemen to suggest that they believed that they experienced explosions caused by explosives planted in the building. That is NOT the case. Only one of this group of 118 witnesses has come forward to suggest such a thing and he is clearly a very confused man. In many instances he gets his facts plain wrong.

Where have I misquoted McQueen?

Next, your fireman quote is irrelevant. There were hundreds of cameras and observers there and not only did the cameras not pick up these explosions , but neither did seismographs. Nor was any evidence of explosive material found.

All you have presented so far is

1) it looked like a controlled demolition
2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions
3) george bush acted funny
4) someone said they saw molten metal

but

1) Explosive noises doesn’t equal cutting charges
2) Molten steel doesn’t equal thermite controlled demolition
3) Bush acting funny doesn’t equal foreknowledge

Next, controlled demolitions of large buildings occur from the bottom up. Not the top down. There is a lot of science behind this choice and it is not the result of someones' whim on the day. The set sequence of initiations CANNOT be in any order if you want a controlled and effective demolition.

I notice you have again failed to answer the four points I put to you in my last post. Nor did you respond to my point about the “Absolute Proof” misunderstanding, clearly being an attempt to mislead.

How about you reassure ME you actually look at, at least one of the links I provide to directly rebut your claims. Because if you don’t, this just isn’t worth continuing

(I just hope site visitors are a little more sophisticated than to assume that whoever gets in the last word or whoever acts the most morally indignant must have won the debate, otherwise, I really have my work cut out for me, over the coming months.)

Paul.L wrote, "How about you reassure ME you actually look at, at least one of the links I provide to directly rebut your claims. ..."

Paul.L, I have looked at just about all the links you have given me. I don't think they have much merit. As I wrote, if you want me to respond, then I suggest that you quote from them on this forum. I am not going to do that work for you.

Paul.L wrote, "... Because if you don't, this just isn't worth continuing."

As I wrote earlier, I can continue with or without that participation, although, obviously, at the moment, I would prefer the latter.

---

Unless, you are prepared to give specific examples of quotes having been taken out of context, I still consider your argument about Graeme McQueen and the witness statements to be sophistry. If they have been misrepresented, why haven't any of them come forward to say this is the case. To others, I suggest that your read for yourself http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf and view the YouTube interviews of firemen and other witnesses including Barry Jennings.

Paul.L wrote, "All you have presented so far is

"1) it looked like a controlled demolition
2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions
3) george bush acted funny
4) someone said they saw molten metal"

(tobecontinued)

(Continuedfromabove)

No, that's not 'all' I have presented.

As anyone who makes the effort to look back through this forum can easily see for himself/herself that this is not the case, I can only presume that you are hoping that at least some forum visitors won't bother to do so and will simply take your word for it.

Let's remember that the attacks could not have succeeded in the first place without the complete failure of the world's most formidable air defence system. Even the official 9/11 Commission Report puts the probability of that having occurred at:

54,000,000 to 1.

In other words, the probability that the attacks should not have succeeded at all that day should be very close to 1.

On top of that we had the extraordinary coincidence on the same day, of three unprecedented engineering failures that have never occurred before and have never occurred since. I have cited at least two authoritative experts as well as the 521 qualified architects and engineers who have, so far, signed the petition at http://ae911truth.org, who believe the collapses to have been controlled demolitions.

The above far from exhausts the list of extraordinary coincidences on that day as you should easily have been able to see for yourself.

On top of that, we have the cover-up of the evidence of the crime, including the astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7

Paul.L wrote, "All you have presented so far is ... 2) people heard noises which sounded like explosions"

That's a lie, Paul.L, and you know it.

I showed you a clear image of a large orange flash on one of the towers at the precise time and location that the first collapse occurred at 7:00 minutes into the abovementioned broadcast at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw and you have repeatedly ignored my invitation to explain that.

That could not have been left-over aviation fuel, which would surely have burnt out long before then.

(tobecontinued)