Did you bother to read what they said about “High-Order Damage”? “High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”

“We see all signs of “high-order damage” in all three building collapses. We are professionals, we are not supposed to jump to conclusions, and we are not supposed to let political and public factors determine what we do and don’t investigate. We definitely are not supposed to destroy the very evidence that will provide the answers. And, when every indicator in “the book” is screaming “high-order” explosive damage, we have a history of prior explosives use by terrorists in those exact buildings, we have over 100 first responders reporting hearing “secondary” explosions, the fact that evidence was destroyed and this wasn’t investigated thoroughly is nothing short of criminal! It’s time to get real loud about this. Our Brothers were murdered.”

You also dispute the physical evidence even when it does not appear to be ambiguous. You say that none of the videos give the sound of explosives. How about this one?
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
What is your justification for rejecting that as the real sound of a real explosion? There are others. Perhaps some other reader may have one handy.

Thanks again, amoeba.

The material in both those YouTube broadcasts was included within other YouTube broadcasts I have already provided links to.

Paul.L simply pretended not to have seen them.

I somehow don't see him being able to pull that stunt off again this time.

---

Paul.L wrote, "I've shown you how many people used the terms "EXPLOSION" to describe the sound of bodies hitting the ground at terminal velocity on the day."

So what?

A lot of other testimony described explosive sounds that could not have been caused by the impacts of falling bodies.

Paul.L wrote, "... What you have transcribed is fire-fighters using the language of demolitions to describe the collapse of the towers. ..."

How about explaining to us why you don't think their words describe a controlled demolition?

Paul.L continued, "... Worse, you have introduced your own words and placed them in the mouths of these people."

Excuse, me Paul.L, ...

Who do you think would be in any doubt as to which words were theirs and which were mine? I wrote the transcription for the benefit of others. Anyone could check the broadcast for themselves at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow if they were to suspect that I was trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

---

Paul.L, I think you will need to explain a little further why my post at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#49002 "demonstrates (my) TOTAL lack of understanding of demolition".

---

Paul.L wrote, "I'm not interested in debating this with you anymore."

It didn't seem to me that you were, anyway, so I'm not sure what difference this will make from now on.

Amoeba,

>> “...there will be many people who make mistakes ... but to call these all lies is provocative”

And to call a lie a mistake is likewise provocative. I’m not suggesting morons like Dagget are liars, just misguided.

Firefighters

I said >> Do you think the FDNY doesn’t have structural engineers and other specialists … “

You said >> You appear to be unaware what the firefighters are saying.”

Where not only did I not find any FDNY structural engineers, I find that these guys are Seattle fire-fighters. So they weren’t there.

You say >> “In this day and age that is a pretty weak argument”

All they can do is review the evidence like the rest of us. But FDNY guys were actually there. They are PRIMARY sources in this investigation. Griffin used interviews with dozens of these FDNY guys to highlight his claims of explosions. But can he get ANY of them (besides Schroeder) to stand up and support his claims that there were actual explosives in the buildings? Not that I’m aware of.

Explosions

I watched the Barry Jennings interview. How do we know that the damage to the building he experienced wasn’t caused by the collapse of the south tower? Why were “they” exploding charges hours before the building was to collapse?

I watched the explosion video. Please compare it with this video showing an actual demolition. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg.
Your “You tube” video had no context; we don’t know when or where it was taking place. Again, it was clearly not at the same time as a building collapsing. Why were they detonating explosives before the building collapses?

You say >> “Did you bother to read what they said about “High-Order Damage”?

Firstly, if you want me to read something in particular, introduce it, and reference it. I’m busy and I’m sure you are to, and I can’t spend all day trawling through these “truther websites”. I’ll do you the same favour. Where is the evidence which must have been left behind of det cord, cleanly cut structural members, blast marks etc, in the rubble?

When Paul.L wrote: "... But FDNY guys were actually there. They are PRIMARY sources in this investigation. Griffin used interviews with dozens of these FDNY guys to highlight his claims of explosions. But can he get ANY of them (besides Schroeder) to stand up and support his claims that there were actual explosives in the buildings? Not that I’m aware of. "

... he was dishonestly attempting to imply that all New York firefighters, with the sole exception of John Schroeder, reject any suggestion that there were explosions in the towers before and during the collapse.

That is not the case, and he knows it.

In fact other New York Firefighters have testified since the initial interviews collated in Graeme MacQueen's study at that there were explosions. These include Lou Cacchioli who testified before the 9/11 Commission. Of the Commission, Cacchioli wrote:

"My story was never mentioned in the final [9/11 Commission] report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room. I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out.

"It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible." http://www.arcticbeacon.com (http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html).

None of the firefighters who were cited in Graeme MacQueen's study at http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf have complained that they were misrepresented although clearly the 9/11 Commission attempted to misrepresent Lou Cacchioli's testimony.

In any case, there were more witnesses than just firefighters as Paul.L well knows, including the late Barry Jennings at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI Now that it is no longer possible for him to pretend that he hasn't seen it, he now attempts to diminish its significance.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

These are some of Barry Jennings' words which I have already transcribed, which Paul.L also pretended not to have seen :

"I know what I heard. I heard explosions. The explanation I got was that it was the fuel oil tank. [shakes his head] I'm an old boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one side of the building."

On top of that we have testimony from the firefighters I transcribed above, policemen, first aid workers and other first responders at http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html as well as news reporters on the day in at least one of the YouTube broadcasts I have already linked to. And if that were not enough, then what about President W's own words, which Paul.L has also avoided acknowledging:

"... He told us that the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a higher point - a point that was high enough to prevent people from escaping. ..." (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I)

?

Whilst Paul.L has lately formed the habit of referring to me as a moron, I know for a fact that he is not a moron, and because I know that he is not a moron, he knows damn well, and has known damn well for some time that there is abundant evidence of explosions having gone of before and during the WTC collapses.

Another piece of testimony of explosions Paul.L has conveniently 'forgotten' in his obscene clamouring to completely deny the existence of any credible evidence of explosions around the World Trade Center is that of 9/11 hero William Rodriguez who had worked as a janitor.

Let's hear, again, how Paul.L attempted to dismiss his testimony:

"Against my better judgement I checked out the story of William Rodriguez (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1219050.interview_the_untold_story_of_september_11/), an ex-magician, exposer of faith healers and currently on a highly lucrative world speaking tour. ..."

So Paul.L would have us resent the fact that a man who previously worked as a janitor and who rejected an offer by the Republican Party to stand for office and who put is own life at risk to save the lives of many others and whose future health will almost certainly suffer as a result is able to earn a living from his experiences?

If William Rodriguez ever comes to this county, I will certainly be paying to seem him.

Would Paul.L apply the same standards to Lisa Beamer, wife of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer, who, unlike Ellen Mariani (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE), husband of Neil Mariani, boarded the doomed Flight 175 on September 11, has not demanded answers from the Bush administration and has not demanded an explanation from Donald Rumsfeld for his statement that her husband's flight had been "shot down" (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0)?

Recently Lisa Beamer bought a second house for $US1.99million (http://911researchers.com/node/1137).

Paul.L continued: "... Rodriguez doesn't understand how people on the ground floor could be burned when the plane crashed 80 stories up. I wonder if anybody ever told him that jet fuel, like everything else, obeys the laws of gravity. Burning jet fuel poured into the elevator shafts and exploded out of anywhere open, including on the ground floor lobby. ..."

"I wonder", writes Paul.L!

Well, what do you think, Paul.L?

With all that he stood to gain personally, would you have us think that William Rodriguez was lying when he told us that he tried his very hardest to accept the official myth? ... (tobecontinued)