(continuedfromabove)

After having done that Forrest Gump came to the same firm conclusion that I had (partly through having considered the quality of arguments in favour of it in this discussion), that is, that the Official Conspiracy Theory was rubbish.

For having done that Paul.L chose to insult Forrest, not once, but at least three times so far by my count.

It's clear that Paul.L doesn't want others to consider the evidence for themselves as Forrest Gump has done. He is clearly hoping that others not wishing to be labelled a wingnut/conspiracy nut/moonbat/fruit loop/nutbagrather will take his word that:

"... the major points of the 9/11 truth movement discussed and debunked" within this forum.

---

One particularly stupid argument that I can't let lie any longer is Paul.L's argument that because the collapses of the Twin Towers were not from bottom up like demolitions then therefore they could not have been a demolition.

The fact remains that the collapses displayed many remarkable features that could not possibly have been consistent with a collapse having been brought about about by fires fueled by aviation fuel having been splashed around the building.

As listed on http://ae911.org they include:

* Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets and 1000 people – mostly to dust

* Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

* Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

* 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

* Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

* Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

* Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

* Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises

* Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

* 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

If Paul.L insists that any of that has been explained by any theory other than the controlled demolition theory, then he is lying.

If it could be explained, then we would have expected to see lucid computer simulations of all three collapses and not just that concocted simulation of the WTC7 collapse that only purports to show up to the start of the collapse.

Furthermore, contrary to Paul.L's assertion, the buildings were designed to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707, which would have been the overall equivalent an impact of a Boeing 757.

daggett,

I'd hesitate to say that I have yet come to the firm conclusion that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is rubbish. I am, however, satisfied that David Ray Griffin's 'The New Pearl Harbor' does show that there are seeming inconsistencies as between official claims, and other matters of public record, in relation to this event.

A weakness leading to prejudice among people struggling in coming to a view with respect to this understandably disturbing event, is the event's depiction as being simply an act of terrorism. It may well have truly been that, but its being such does not necessarily preclude that terrorism having been premeditatively utilized to enhance the power of the executive arm of US government, or of instrumentalities or interest groups therein.

That is why I suggested the 9/11 events be looked at instead as a 'failed coup'. Some of the inconsistencies between the official view and other matters of public record seem more understandable in such a context. Many of these inconsistencies are highlighted in the Complete 9/11 Timeline. See: http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project I do not absolutely assert it was an attempted coup that we all watched unfold, but it is uncontested that flight UA 93, the only flight upon which there was a seemingly successful passenger uprising, was part of the 9/11 events and that its intended target was in Washington DC. Was that target to have been the US legislature (the Capitol building), and its mission to have been sucessful in crippling of that legislature, who can say as to what unprecedented action executive government may have felt free to take, and in the immediate aftermath, what the US public may have been prepared to accept in good faith.

Since the early hours of this morning I have been unable to select 'view 20 topics, one quarter back' and then display this list in order of post recency. Clicking 'last post' reverts the display to 5 topics only. Graham, via email, claims no difficulty in doing such display.

Any problems?

Dagget,

You know you've already accused me of lying a couple of times now, yet you are the one who has been SHOWN to have misled this discussion on at least two ocassions.

Furthermore,I have never argued that it could not be a demolition. I have argued that it was not a demolition. I'm sure you'll have trouble with the difference.

All I did was show you that the building did not "look like a controlled demolition".

Originally, this was the strongest piece of evidence you had, and if you are honest you will acknowledge that the manner in which the building fell looked to you like a controlled demolition because you didn't know the difference.

I never said the building could not have been demolished because of the manner of collapse. You are flagrantly making things up, again. And only a week after you called me a liar, only to find out you hadn't done your research, AGAIN.

If people want to read why the building was not demolished using explosives they should read http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Do you even know what a pyroclastic flow is dagget? The clouds of dust where just that, clouds of dust from hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete floors smashing into each other. The dust clouds enveloped thousands of people and they weren't burned.

The NIST report examines many of the more common myths of the "truthers".http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Besides the so called journal of 9/11 studies, where have any of the truthers had scientific articles accepted?

On the other hand, the work of NIST and the actual collapse details have been published in academia and found to be consistent. Of course if you want to believe that the whole of the engineering and architectural communities are in on the conspiracy then there is no hope for you.

In a community as large as enginering/architecture 500 nutjobs is a VERY small minority, and no doubt is surpassed by the number of them who list JEDI as a religion, or who believe in fairies, ghosts or monsters

Paul.L wrote, "You know you've already accused me of lying a couple of times now,"

This is a lie:

"Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse." ... when there was a lot more than that.

... and this is a lie:

"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"

For my part I have not intentionally misled anyone and, in particular, I have not intentionally misled anyone about the subject of this topic.

Where I have unintentionally misled this forum I have acknowledged that I have and have expressed my regret.

You have not.

The distinction you make between saying it was not a controlled demolition and saying that it could not have been seems fine to me.

Why then did you labour the stupid point that the collapse of the towers were different to standard demolitions when the motive for not having demolished the twin towers from bottom to top should have been so blindingly obvious that it would have been barely been worth the trouble of even considering?

---

FG, my apologies if I have misrepresented you. I think there are only three theories for 9/11 that could have ever been considered even remotely plausible:

1. Astonishing incompetence at every level in a number of US Government agencies combined with fantastic coincidences.

2. The US Government knew it was going to happen and deliberately let it happen.

3. The US Government orchestrated the attacks making use of deluded patsies to carry out the hijackings.

I have firmly arrived at the view that the first is impossible and the 2nd highly unlikely.

Dagget,

You say >> “This is a lie: "Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse." ... when there was a lot more than that.”

What absolute and unadulterated bullsh!t. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here Dagget.

I referenced the quote at the top of the page you posted, (the site has since been reorganized) and then suggested that if that’s all they had it was a joke. I don’t know why they would lead with something so weak, but they did. In any case, its not my job to go rifling through the websites of crackpots. All I was passing judgment on was the statement I posted, and you conveniently left out. You are being incredibly deceitful Dagget, and it is clear you are attempting to redeem your own tattered reputation by besmirching mine.

The next “so called” lie is an opinion Dagget. If you are suggesting that my interpretation of events is lying, then I could finish up the debate by saying you are an inveterate liar, because you are repeating the lie that is the 9/11 conspiracy.

You say >>” Why then did you labour the stupid point that the collapse of the towers were different to standard demolitions when the motive for not having demolished the twin towers from bottom to top”

Because you were SO lacking in understanding of the science involved that you were convinced by a bunch of crackpots and charlatans that the collapse “looked like a demolition,” therefore it must have been a demolition. That’s why I spent so much time showing you that the collapse didn’t look like a demolition.

To most normal people it is blindingly obvious that the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are crackpot.Every single point you made I either explained, or forced you to reconsider. The Debunking movement has done the same to the 9/11 truthers/crackpots