CONT,

This is an interesting case study in truther stupidity. I’m not referring to Cacchioli here, who doesn’t jump to the conclusion that the gov’t was letting off bombs, I’m talking about the shut-ins and internet nerds who can’t get enough of conspiracy stories. Why would the conspirators explode bombs on the ground floor when the jet hit the 80th floor?

You say >> “Lou Cachioli has clearly taken his stance by having courageously tried to speak the truth to a hostile 9/11 Commission “

The fact that Lou Cachioli’s was disgruntled with the 9/11 commission doesn’t provide any proof that he believes YOUR story, that the US gov’t blew up the buildings. In fact I’ve already pasted an interview with Cachiolli where he clearly holds Osama Bin Laden responsible for the attacks of that day.

You say >> Moreover he has clearly agreed to having allowed that testimony to stand on the "Patriots Question 9/11" web site.”

You have NO EVIDENCE of this. It is pure assumption on your part. So please leave out your assumptions because I have shown time and again that they are invariably wrong.

You say >> “I showed that other firefighters, who "were actually there", had since stood by their testimony .. “

Regarding Tardio and Zoda, all you have done is repeat what they said on the day adding your own conclusions. You certainly have not yet shown that they stand by YOUR claims of a gov’t conspiracy.

You say >> “My suggestion to others, who may be tempted to accept Paul's claimed authority .. ”

Others? You really are a complete NUTBAG.

I don’t claim to be an authority Dagget. You assume that I am because I’m arguing with you, and you think you’re an authority. I think I have regularly demonstrated you most certainly are not an authority on this subject. Indeed you struggle with even the most basic scientific concepts. What anyone who cares to read your posts will see is that you are merely parroting what you read on AE911 etc. No ability to independently analyse anything at all.

Paul wrote, "I am not concerned with what Lou Cachioli's initial thoughts were. ..."

Indeed, Paul is obviously not.

I note that Paul has not acknowledged my point:

"So we have Lou Cacchioli's testimony of three distinct 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."

I think others need to question Paul's persistent resort to evasion, red herrings and personal abuse.

Dagget,

you say >> "I note that Paul has not acknowledged my point:"

Firstly, you don't have a point. Secondly, I spent virtually a whole post discussing Lou Cacchioli's testimony, which you have failed to respond to. This is because you have GREAT difficulty explaining why Cacchioli hasn't come forward to say anything else.

Most importantly, you completely ignored the fact that Cacchioli thought he was inside the north tower when it began collapsing. Clearly he is wrong about that. What else is he wrong about?

You also ignored the fact that the People Magazine interview, which you repeat ad nauseam, misquoted Cachioli. As is clearly stated in the Artic Beacon article.

here is the quote, AGAIN >> "Furthermore, 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."
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/29548.htm

I note you are refusing to apologise for your LIE on the thread, "Bush's Democracy of Hypocrisy", nor respond to my points. Avoiding the tough questions again, huh?

Paul wrote, "Firstly, you don't have a point."

Well, actually, I thought I had.

You tried to imply that that Paul Cacchioli (http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Cacchioli) must have confused the collapse of the South Tower with explosions inside the North Tower, which he was inside at the time.

I showed that this could not be the case and furthermore, if you had properly read his testimony, you would know yourself that that could not be the case.

I don't actually mind if you don't acknowledge my point, but I believe I have every right to draw to the attention of other forum users to such evasions on your part.

---

Paul wrote, "... I spent virtually a whole post discussing Lou Cacchioli's testimony, ... "

No, you didn't.

All you did was try to argue why Lou Cacchioli's direct testimony of his own experiences at the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001 should be disregarded.

Paul continued, "... which you have failed to respond to."

In point of fact, I wrote a longer post which did responded to your 'discussion' of Lou Cacchioli's evidence. I think others following this discussion might understand my initial decision to instead submit the shorter post which I did. Anyway, here it is:

Paul is not interested to know what Lou Cacchioli tried to tell the 9/11 Commission. The only testimony that Paul sees as relevant is Lou Cacchioli on 8 September 2002 implicitly holding Osama bin Laden for the attacks(http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=263793).

Paul has attempted to dismiss or rationalise away every piece of evidence I have presented either from firefighters or other people who "were actually there" whether from Lou Cacchioli, John Schroeder, William Rodriguez, Dennis Tardio, Patrick Zoda or Barry Jennings, but has presented none which backs up the case he is arguing.

Paul wrote, "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." ...

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

If Lou Cacchioli personally did not have "definitive proof bombs were actually detonated" would Paul at least concede that the 9/11 Commission should have at least have seriously investigated that possibility given that he and 112 members of the FDNY many other had clearly heard "what sounded like bombs" or had seen explosions? Does Paul think it acceptable that the 9/11 Commission should have attempted to twist his words ad not include his story or the stories of many others who had witnessed explosions in its final report?

---

Paul wrote, "Most importantly, you completely ignored the fact that Cacchioli thought he was inside the north tower when it began collapsing. ..."

How do you know that, Paul? Where did he say that he "thought he was inside the north tower when it began collapsing" or did you read his mind? He heard a rapid succession of explosions, which obviously turned out not to be the tower collapsing

Paul continued, "... Clearly he is wrong about that. What else is he wrong about?"

Well, why don't you tell us what you think, Paul? Was he right about anything? Do you think he imagined it all? Do you think he made it all up?

---

And, as with Lou Cacchioli, you clutch at every conceivable straw you can find in order to convince others to ignore the testimony of "FDNY guys (who) were actually there" or others such as Barry Jennings, 9/11 hero William Rodriguez, news reporters, acoustic evidence, etc, etc.

It's instructive that you haven't offered testimony of eyewitnesses on the day as evidence for your case (that is, except for testimony of how the impact of humans hitting the pavement could have been mistaken for explosions, which proves nothing one way or the other).

---

Paul wrote, "This is because you have GREAT difficulty explaining why Cacchioli hasn't come forward to say anything else."

Why would I presume to know why Lou Cacchioli "hasn't come forward to say anything else"?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

He has courageously made public statements about his experiences which flatly contradict the Official US Government explanation of the Twin Tower 'collapses'. He tried to present his evidence to the 9/11 Commission only to have his words twisted and his testimony censored from the final report.

He has personally done far more than most citizens would to tell the truth in the face of hostility from those who want to silence him.

Personally, I would have wished that Lou Cacchioli had continued to take a high profile stand on the issue, but I can understand why someone in his circumstances would choose not to do so.

Why can't you?

Anyhow, Paul, do you or don't you agree with Lou Cacchioli's statement at the end of the article you referred to in http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/29548.htm

"... I know the whole truth hasn't come out yet."

?

---

Paul wrote, "I note you are refusing to apologise for your LIE on the thread, "Bush's Democracy of Hypocrisy", nor respond to my points. Avoiding the tough questions again, huh?"

This is red herring. If you won't post here the supposed lie of which you complain nor even provide links (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#130497 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#130587) then why not leave it to those visiting that forum to judge?

If you were to apologise some time for having repeatedly called me a moron or an idiot on this forum, then I might reconsider the statement I made and decide if any kind of apology is warranted.

---

Finally, I notice that Paul has fallen silent on the supposed debunking of 9/11 Truth Movement evidence at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyBuANVkQ4

If anyone is interested to see why the picture at http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg most likely shows at least one column cut by explosive charges, please visit http://www.net4truthusa.com/wtcdemolition.htm