(continuedfromabove)

In fact, Paul.L, I would suggest to you, that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition and not just "more 'like'" a controlled demolition". How much more 'like' a controlled demolition could any collapse possibly be?

Paul.L continued, "So what? Expert structural engineering reports agree that WTC7 fell in the manner that NIST suggests."

And other peer-reviewed structural engineering reports say that the explanation is rubbish. The 9/11 Truth movement also published lots of peer-reviewed articles. Just check out http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Even the NIST supposed simulation of the collapse at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html, as far as it goes -- which is not very far -- substantially differs from the actual observed collapse, particularly the simulation in the simulation labelled "WTC 7 Collapse with No Debris Impact Damage – Physics Based Model"

---

I could not find any reference to the 'peer reviewed' article you refer to at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm

... nor could "Winter Patriot" at http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-science-keith-seffen-and-wtc.html http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/11/seffens-folly-attempted-911-hoax-by.html http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/uk-engineer-wtc-collapses-were-very.html

Initially the BBC misleadingly claimed that the article had been published. Then it changed that to:

"The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics."

However, a search of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics at http://ascelibrary.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=JENMDT&ACROSSASCE=YES&pjournals=JENMDT will not uncover any trace of the article.

So, it seems that, once again, you have misled this forum and wasted my time.

---

I think it's time we left behind those incapable of acknowledging the mountains of clear evidence pointing to the complicity of the Bush administration in the 9/11 attacks and moved on to the real discussion.

Forrest Gump, I note your observations about Flight 93. Even all those years in which I accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory, I found that story quite uplifting if sad.

In all probably what the uprising of the passengers on Flight 93 would have prevented a coup on 11 September 2001.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Had the Capitol building been hit and a significant number of US legislators killed it is not hard to imagine how, just as Hitler suspended the German constitution after the Reichstag Fire, the PNAC cabal would have attempted to do the same on 11 September 2001. As bad as things turned out, it could easily have been so much worse.

We should not take it for granted that countries like the U.S. and Australia will always remain democracies.

---

Forrest Gump,

In regard to the Pentagon attack, you may be interested to know there are people within the 9/11 Truth Movement who accept that it is possible that an airliner hit the Pentagon as unlikely as it appears to me from the photos and other evidence.

Howevere, whether it was a 757 a cessna, a cruise missile or whatever, the crucial question remains how it was possible for anything at all to hit the most heavilly guarded building in the world.

---

Lastly, I note that, once again, CJ Morgan has shown himself to be either incapable of answering a simple straigtforward question, or unwilling to answer.

You are such a MORON.

Dagget says >> “So, it seems that, once again, you have misled this forum and wasted my time.”

Firstly I have never misled this forum. Dagget is the one who has been parading about under false pretences, actually having conversations with himself under his various pseuonyms. Nor have I introduced “evidence” which was actually fabricated to make a point. It’s a shame Dagget can’t say the same.

Secondly, here is the reference Dagget couldn’t find and then accused me of lying about. http://ascelibrary.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000134000002000125000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes

This says EVERYTHING about Daggets standard of scholarship and his propensity to believe that EVERYONE is conspiring against him. Seeing conspiracies everywhere is the first sign of schizophrenia, I would get myself checked out if I were him. Believing the IDIOTS who post on the web, over a fact checked, highly acclaimed newspaper is typical of Dagget, who seems to believe that if it's on the “truther” websites, it must be true. Pity he didn’t check for himself. But that’s been his problem all along.

So I have shown Dagget that McQueen has only John Schroeder (not doubt a brave man, but not a very sophisticated one) from his 118 first responder witnesses who actually believe his “theories” on the collapse.

Dagget has finally agreed that the building WTC1 and 2 did not look like controlled demolitions.

His “orange flash” which he held was the cause of the collapse, was shown to occur well after the building began collapsing.

His “exploded into dust” nonsense required months to expose, even though I supplied evidence to refute it early on.

Dagget says >> The 9/11 Truth movement also published lots of peer-reviewed articles. http://www.journalof911studies.com/”

What a JOKE. The journal of 9/11 studies is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is a homepage for the half-smart, pseudo-scientific or self deluded. The issues surrounding the collapse of the towers are significant engineering events. The fact that these “truthers” would prefer to publish in a mickey mouse journal instead of a real science journal speaks VOLUMES.

Your just not very bright are you mate.

Am I the only one here to detect ever-increasing signs of desperation on the part of Paul.L?

Not only does he call me also a MORON, but now he wants to dredge up the well-and-truly-worn distraction of daggett having been accused of having made use of other accounts in this discussion.

Perhaps, Paul.L was too quick to rebuke the (original) Moron earlier on in this discussion. He should have better appreciated his value in being able to railroad thie discussion into bitter acrimonious personal exchanges.

I note that the much ballyhooed peer-reviewed paper by Keith Seffen does, in fact, exist after all.

Well, silly me for believing the BBC!

When they initially reported that the paper had been published in September 2007, but subsequently changed that to "The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics", I expected it at least to be published before the end of 2007 and not February 2008, so I only searched for the year 2007 (but, one can't help but to suspect that maybe they delayed its publication in the hope that nobody would be looking when it did eventually get published).

Anyway it appears, from all accounts, to be a crock.

People can judge for themsleves by viewing http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/11/keith-seffens-progressive-collapse-of.html and reading the above links.

As for the rest of Paul.L's posts, I am sure we've all been there before and it ahs all been rebutted.

I will have to leave it to others to sort it out until I find more time.

This is what happens every time I prove Dagget wrong. He runs and hides.

he says >> "Am I the only one here to detect ever-increasing signs of desperation on the part of Paul.L?"

Desperation? I've just shown you up, AGAIN. I've caught you out in a MASSIVE mistake, and worse, you actually accused me of trying to mislead people about it. You have EGG all over your face and you call me desperate?

If you will recall Dagget, you have labeled me a pedant for actually believing the things you have said. Being precise about what you are saying is VITAL in a online debate, furthermore I simply don't believe you when you say you didn't mean that the buildings had been exploded into dust. You have said may things which were equally as silly before, indeed the whole of the WTC conspiracy stuff is silly.

But you also called me a liar and a time waster, for reasons only known to yourself, when in actual fact it was your own poor research abilities which befuddled you. I felt it important to point out that it was NOT I who has a history of seeking to mislead others. When you accuse me of lying why would I not bring up your history of actual lying. What a normal person would have done was ask for evidence of this document. That way you don't end up looking so much like an absolute amateur.

I notice that even after Winter Patriot has led you astray, you go back and refer to his opinion regarding the Professors work. Try and find an actual civil/structural engineer to rebut Seffens case, not some half-smart blogger with a grudge against the govt.

Its actually typical dagget, who goes back to the LIARS who produced the "absolute truth" video after I show him their DELIBERATE attempts to mislead.

If anything Dagget, it is you who are getting hysterical, I am prepared to take as long as is necessary to show you how wrong you are.

This is a link to a page on the complete 9/11 Timeline site titled 'Other pre-9/11 events': http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=complete_911_timeline_other_pre_9_11_events

The third last item on the page, headed 'September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions' is most interesting.

The thing that attracts my attention is the size of the apparent discrepancy when compared to the size of the recent bailout, at US taxpayers' expense, of failing financial institutions. Is there any connection between this, at the time eclipsed, announcement of a failure to account for defence expenditure and the 2008 financial crisis, I wonder?

Was evidence as to the possible unlawful diversion of funds from approved defence projects to unapproved projects or black operations known to be about to come to light as a consequence of US Defense Department audit operations? It is interesting that the very part of the Pentagon hit by whatever impacted that building on Tuesday 11 September 2001 contained at least part of that audit function's records and personnel. Such coincidence is suggestive as to that specific part of the building having been chosen for deliberately planned destruction by interests knowledgeable as to what may have been about to be revealed by audit.

Going further, was the timing of the 2008 US financial crisis itself contrived as part of a cover-up or large scale diversion of public attention relating to the events of 9/11? If what we saw on 9/11 was a failed coup, rather than simply a large terrorist attack, would not funding of the order of size of the claimed discrepancy have been needed as 'bridging finance' by the US executive (or what was left of it) to run the functions of coup government IT wanted operational until such time as it could have a compliant replacement legislature elected to restore the appearance of (nationally enraged) normalcy?

Did that part of the Pentagon have to be hit with precision on 9/11?