I see that Paul is having difficulty answering the straight question I put to him in my last post.

---

As for Lou Cachioli holding Osama bin Laden responsible for 9/11 at http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=263793 :

So did I at the time, and still did until, perhaps, less than 18 months ago, but I have no idea what Paul thinks that is supposed to prove about anything.

(In fact, Osama bin Laden as a CIA asset almost certainly facilitated the recruitment of patsies to be used in the 'false flag' 9/11 attack, but that is not the same as being a the principle perpetrator).

I note Paul is silent on what Lou Cachioli said of his testimony to the 9/11 Commision and how they attempted to "twist his words" and how his story as never included in the final 9/11 Comission report (http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Cacchioli).

It's hard to understand why he would have been treated this way if all he wanted to say was how much he hated Osama bin Laden.

---

Paul wrote, "They are telling us what they experienced, not how it happened. Do you even understand the difference?"

Nope. ;-)

---

Paul writes in regard to the cut columns, "you just see what you want to see. You see cut columns – therefore its evidence that the building was demolished. ..."

But I never even raised that issue until you did first, Paul.

Nevertheless, my point stands that I failed to see the exact cut column with the same sharp angle of cut that is in http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg anywhere in the YouTube video at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0 or http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyBuANVkQ4

So how about telling me which one it is?

Could I suggest diving the screen into 10 along the x-axis and 6 on the Y axis starting from 1 on both axes and then give me the coordinates of the cut steel column 1.23 minutes into http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyBuANVkQ4 where it is.

Unless you are able to do that, I fail to see what either of those broadcasts prove.

Dagget,

Some of us actually have a life outside the computer room. We can’t all be shut-ins like yourself.

I have NO difficulty with answering your question.

Lou Cachiolli has not stood up and said that he believes that pre-planted bombs brought down the twin towers. As your quote so obviously demonstrates, Cachiolli was speculating as to the cause of the effects he was experiencing. He says “ I was THINKING”, which means he didn’t actually witness any explosions and he was trying to fill in the blanks. All he has to go on is the shock wave, which numerous other fire-fighter experienced and which they linked to the collapse of the other tower.

The truthers have MAJOR problems trying to explain WHY the gov’t (which is trying to keep this false flag operation a secret) would be exploding bombs well before the final collapse. After all, “THEY” know there are people still in the building, they would know that witnesses are a real possibility. Why would they pre-explode bombs when they were only going to collapse the whole thing later? STUPID.

You clearly don’t find it strange, because you are so conspiracy minded, that of the hundreds of firefighters who experienced these things, you struggle to find ANY who actually believe your story

You say >> “I note Paul is silent on what Lou Cachioli said of his testimony to the 9/11 Commision ”

You just make things up to fit your case don’t you. Its typical truther behaviour actually.

You say >> “It's hard to understand why he would have been treated this way ”

AGAIN with the overuse of your wacky imagination. Cacchioli has given a number of interviews since 9/11. There are plenty of forums for him to have put his concerns. The internet is riddled with conspiracy websites, were he would be feted like a hero. Yet he has NOT come out in support of the 9/11 truth movement, or their cheap and nasty conspiracy stories

Paul wrote, "You just make things up to fit your case don’t you."

No, I don't.

You have said nothing about Lou Cachioli's complaints of his treatment by the 9/11 Commission and how his story was omitted from their report (see http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Cacchioli).

---

I gather from the rest of Paul's long meandering post, he means to tell us that when Lou Cachioli stated:

"I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'"

... that Lou Cachioli was not meaning to say that he though that there were "bombs placed in the building".

Please correct me if I am wrong, Paul.

I note that whilst Paul claimed "he (has) NO difficulty with answering (my) question, he has declined to confirm whether or not, in all of his previous post, he meant to imply that Lou Cachioli had NOT thought that explosives had been planted in the North Tower.

---

For the benefit of others I will state some of my understanding of Paul's convoluted tortuous attempts to dismiss the clear testimony of New York Firefighters who witnessed, audibly, visually or by shock waves, explosions before and during the collapses of the Twin towers.

Paul implied that contrary to the Seattle firefighters who have set up the site http://firefightersfor911truth.org every firefighter on the scene, bar John Schroeder, rejected the controlled demolition hypothesis:

"But FDNY guys were actually there. They are PRIMARY sources in this investigation. ... But can he get ANY of them (besides Schroeder) to stand up and support his claims that there were actual explosives in the buildings? ...." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#52225)

I showed that other firefighters, who "were actually there", had since stood by their testimony including Lou Cachioli who testified to the 9/11 Commission but complained of having his words twisted, exactly the same accusation he made against Graeme MacQueen.

So, then Paul tried to come up with other reasons as to why the testimony of Lou Cachioli, who "(was) actually there", should be disregarded:

"All he has to go on is the shock wave, which numerous other fire-fighter experienced and which they linked to the collapse of the other tower."

WRONG!

Here, again, are Cachioli's words somewhat expanded from what I pasted above:

"... we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator."

"I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'"

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

So we have Lou Cachioli's testimony of three distinction loud explosions in addition to a subsequent rapid succession of explosions, seemingly from within in the North Tower, the first to be hit and the second to collapse.

It is impossible to imagine that all of this could have occurred within the 11 seconds that it took the South Tower to collapse and therefore have been confused with the latter and it is impossible to believe that Paul could not have realised that.

Paul wrote, "There are plenty of forums for him to have put his concerns. The Internet is riddled with conspiracy websites, were he would be feted like a hero. ..."

That a firefighter forcibly retired from injuries and from having inhaled the toxic dust of the collapsed Twin Towers chooses not to spend the next five years of his life stating and restating his testimony on 9/11 "conspiracy web sites" seems understandable to me and certainly no reason to assume that he no longer stands by his testimony.

Paul continued, "Yet he has NOT come out in support of the 9/11 truth movement, ..."

This is a self-evident lie.

Lou Cachioli has clearly taken his stance by having courageously tried to speak the truth to a hostile 9/11 Commission only to have his story omitted from the report. Moreover he has clearly agreed to having allowed that testimony to stand on the "Patriots Question 9/11" web site.

My suggestion to others, who may be tempted to accept Paul's claimed authority rather than try to make sense of his many other long-winded posts, is that they should first carefully look at his treatment of the testimony of New York firefighters and treat that as a litmus test.

Dagget you sad, sad man.

I am not concerned with what Lou Cachioli’s initial thoughts were. Given his lack of a clear overall picture for a least a few days, his initial testimony is far less useful than anything he might have to say after he had some time to reflect.

This is easily demonstrated by the fact that Cachioli thought he was inside the north tower when the building started collapsing. >> "Then as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like the other two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang - huge bangs - and surmised later it was the floors pan caking on top of one another.” http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Secondly from the original article “ … Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.” things become even less clear.

Cachioli and his company, who arrived after the second plane had hit, was sent to the Marriott Hotel, but before they reached it they had already lost a man being hit by someone who leaped to their death. After making it to the Marriott lobby, they were then directed to the north tower. “When he finally entered the North Tower lobby, Cacchioli recalls elevator doors completely blown out and another scene of mass chaos ... ”

Yet Cachioli had this to say “I remember thinking to myself, my God, how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above. It didn’t make sense” clear.http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/29548.htm

He didn’t understand how; minutes after a jet weighing 400,000lbs with 100,000 litres of jet fuel hit the building at approaching ¾ the speed of sound, along the way severing the cables holding some elevators; damage had occurred at ground level. That’s not surprising considering he hadn’t had much time to think about the sequence of events, nor was much widely known about the collapse, when he gave his interview to People Magazine.

TBC