Dagget,

So I'm conspiring against you now by referring to videos which never were. You really are in danger of believing all these fairy stories you find for yourself. Tell you what, wait outside tommorrow night and the "resistance" will pick you up for training.

You're again taking things out of context to make your case. I referred you to the site http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
to demonstrate that the building was not falling at freefall speed. Nothing to do with the pancake theory. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#47976

You argued that they demolished the building so that it would get rid of any evidence that the building was demolished. That just there is insane enough in and of itself. however you went further to say

>> 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 ... yada yada.

What are these then? Ham samwhiches?
http://www.ridgewoodcameraclub.org/photo_gallery/WTCdestruction1.jpg
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/images/WTC1&2Taken9-13-2001image118.jpg

you say >> "we will have to agree to disagree".

After all your muck raking you couldn't find any evidence of a building being demolished from the top down could you. And yet your whole claim that the building looks like it was demolished glosses over the fact that no-one demolishes buildings like that.

I notice you have now moved on from the orange flash, which was SO important to you for the last week. Have you finally realised that explosions happen before things start moving, not after.

you say >> there is certainly no [theory], other than the controlled demolition theory, which can possibly explain how the whole of both towers fell to the ground as dust in, at most, 15 seconds,

We've already dealt with all of those issues and you decided against pursuing them at the time. As an expert, I wonder what YOU think a building, which has suffered a progressive collapse due to extensive damage by a four hundred thousand pound jet flying at 700km/h and the subsequent fires initiated by 50,000 gallons of jet fuel, looks like. I'm all ears.

Forrest,

Molly the dog was running as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Should we take her seriously as well?

How many inquiries do you people want? It wouldn't matter what an inquiry found, to the conspiracy nuts. If the new inquiry found that it happened exactly as 9/11 commission and NIST has suggested, they would just squeal "whitewash" all over again.

I would suggest you be very careful reading anything from the so called "truth movement". In my short period looking at this issue I have come accross "truthers" deliberately misrepresenting facts, figures and videos to make their case seem solid.

What evidence do you believe exists that hasn't been properly explained?

Dagget also believes that just because a lot of people believe some of the nonsense spread by the truth movement, that has some bearing on the validity of the claim. If that is true then the truth movement really are stuffed because out of the millions of engineering and architectural professionals, only a handful have signed their petition.

But I don’t consider that relevant. There are huge numbers of people who believe in ghosts, fairies, ufos, unicorns and even God, with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.

If you are at all interested in the truth, I would suggest you read the rebuttal to Griffin’s claims. See http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Forrest Gump,

I wasn't going to say anything more after what woud have been an excellent concluding post, but as Paul.L has decided to add yet more noise to this discussion in a seeming desperate attempt to have the last word, I feel bound to continue.

---

Paul.L wrote, "So I'm conspiring against you now by referring to videos which never were."

No-one accused you of conspiring against me and no-one even implied that.

When I first looked at the http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

... It had a simulation of the pancake theory superimposed onto a the video of the tower collapsing. I wrote about it and you didn't dispute that it was there. In fact, you seemingly attempted to defend the pancake theory at that point.

When I last looked, I could no longer find the "pancake" simulation was no longer there. That is the simple fact.

---

It seems as if Paul.L is pretending not to understand arguments I made previously in order to avoid having to deal with them. For now, I won't respond to all of his straw men tactics.

---

Paul.L wrote, "After all your muck raking you couldn't find any evidence of a building being demolished from the top down could you"

So what you seem to be saying is that because it hasn't happened before, it can't happen?

It's odd that Paul.L thinks that it is impossible to cause such a smooth symmetrical demolition with the use of explosives, if the detonation sequence is not from bottom to top, but, somehow, the same effect can be achieved with an unplanned collapse.

(more later)

daggett,

I don't agree with you that my last post would have been a good concluding post for this discussion. I certainly was not trying to make it so. In my opinion the real discussion is just beginning. The train of thought contributed to by many may well have emerged from the tunnel of darkness, in which many seeming attempts to derail it have been made using the 'argument by abuse' technique, into the light.

When you opened this discussion you wrote of your having "... touched a few raw nerves". The significant thing is not that YOU touched them, but that they were there and raw to touch. It is easy to underestimate the significance of John Buchanan's criticism of the 'mainline press' as to both its breadth and applicability. A somewhat less noticed corollary of the applicability of such criticism is as to the importance of forum discussions on fora such as OLO as both one of the few means to filling that journalistic void, and as an early warning system for those wishing to suppress discussion.

Do not let the now very obvious, and repeated, attempts by some posters to provoke you on a personal level distract you from presenting what you see as inconsistencies or unanswered questions.

Allow also that GrahamY may to some extent be effectively a prisoner to the wishes of the sponsors of OLO with respect to moderation policy. Any such 'imprisonment' could conceivably take many, and subtle, forms. The sort of moderation a topic of this nature may be thought worthy of, if it has been targetted by extra-fora agents of disinformation, may well require resources beyond that which GrahamY has available. Ride with it.

The 9/11 events may well have been an as yet unrecognized failed attempted coup from within the executive arm of US government directed against the legislative arm of US government and the US Constitution.

Barak Obama's election was on the Fifth of November 2008, Australian time, remember. Remember that date. A similar event also occurred on that very date, some years ago now.

Dagget,

you say >> So what you seem to be saying is that because it hasn't happened before, it can't happen?

Your point from the very beginning has been, to use your words,>> " ... too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions, when no similar phenomenum[sic] that hs[sic] not been a controlled demolition has been observed before or since."

But even you can now agree that controlled demolitions don't look anything like the collapse of the WTC.

Right at the beginning of this thread you said >> "I would honestly feel a lot better if someone could satisfy me that that were not the case. As poorly as I have regarded the U.S. Government I had not been prepared, until about a year ago, to contemplate the possibility that they were prepared to commit such a monstrous crime against their own people.

That was a load of rubbish though, regardless of the numerous flaws in the conspiracy nutjobs case which I have pointed out, you still have no real familiarity with the explanation put forward by NIST, and the 9/11 commission. You prejudged the whole issue.

But you can rejoice, there is someone who believes the conspiracy extends even further than you do.

Forrest (Run Forrest, run) appears to be suggesting that I am a disinformation agent, part of the conspiracy, although errors during translation of his post are inevitable and he might be talking about gardening, its hard to know.

Lord give me STRENGTH.

Paul.L's argument against the controlled demolition theory to explain the collapse of the twin towers (but not about WTC7, about which he still remains silent), is:

No controlled demolition has apparently occurred in that way before. Therefore it could not have been a controlled demolition.

Paul.L earlier tried to imply that the fact that the building is taller than any other building that has so far been destroyed by controlled demolition and the unconventional order in which the floors collapsed make it extremely unlikely that those who had planned the demolition could have caused the buildings to collapse in the neat, symmetrical way in which they did and into dust.

Paul.L can't have it both ways.

If he truly believes that such collapses that we have observed could have occurred without their having been planned, then he would surely have to agree that if it have been easier, and not more difficult, for the collapses to have occurred neatly if they had been planned, regardless of the order in which the detonations had occurred.

Similarly, if Paul.L insists that the mere burning aviation fuel is capable of having so thoroughly caused the destruction of virtually all of the concrete and steel inside the twin towers, then why not thermite/thermate? And let's not forget that in the case of WTC2, the first to collapse, in spite of having been the second to have been hit, most of the aviation fuel appeared to have ended up being spectacularly ignited in the air outside of the building.

If others see Paul.L's arguments as more logical then mine, then, by all means, please continue to pay heed to what he writes and ignore my posts.