We have finally obtained one clear answer to one straight question I put ages ago. However, a second question remains unanswered.

So Paul is happy with an 'investigation' which makes no attempt to explain:

1. 118 recorded FDNY eyewitness testimonies of explosions around the World trade centre before and during the collapse,

2. testimony from 9/11 hero William Rodriguez, of numerous explosions including one huge explosion under the North Tower which preceded the impact of what was said to be Flight 11, which is consistent with seismic evidence at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

3. testimony of Lou Cacchioli,

4 Barry Jennings experience of explosions which preceded the collapse of WTC7,

5. testimony of rivers of molten steel beneath where all 3 'collapsed' World Trade Center towers stood,

6. etc, etc, etc.

He is happy with an 'investigation' which has not only failed to make any explanation of vast amounts of recorded and eyewitness evidence which doesn't conform to the official explanation, but which also suppressed that evidence.

He has no concern about the fact that the crucial evidence which could have either proved or disproved the controlled demolition hypothesis, namely the ruins of the three towers, was removed form the scene and sent overseas to be melted down, before it could have been examined by investigators.

In place of a proper investigation which takes full account of all that evidence, Paul thinks that we should be satisfied with speculative explanations such as those which he has provided:

Oh, all those sounds of explosions must have been elevators falling, generators exploding, the sound of the South Tower collapsing. They must have made it all up so that they could make lots of money on speaking tours, etc, etc.

Paul insists that he is satisfied with such explanations for what would have to be three of the most spectacular engineering failures in modern history, which all occurred on the same day, the like of which have never occurred before and which have never occurred since.

However, I am not.

As I noted Paul failed to answer my second question:

"... where (does) the 9/11 Commission report (state) that (in your words) it 'found no physical evidence of explosives, no left over RDX, no det cord, no scorched or blast damaged steel, ...'"

"What concerted effort was ever made to look for this evidence, before it was all removed?"

He stated that "There would have been huge amounts of evidence left over a 3 demolitions of this size," but ignores or explains away the evidence that was left behind including the rivers of molten steel and the sheered vertical support beam in that photograph.

Paul wrote, "The fact that no-one reported finding any (evidence), ..."

How can Paul claim to know what was reported and what was not?

I have already shown that there is a vast amount of evidence that was offered but was suppressed by the 9/11 Commission and NIST. In this and in so many other aspects of 9/11, there is abundant evidence of eyewitnesses either being ignored or coming under pressure to withdraw or alter their testimony. That includes Barry Jennings who asked that his interview not be included in the movie "Loose Change" because he feared for his job and his safety. As I pointed out, Barry Jennings died mysteriously of a heart attack in August last year.

It's obvious to me that the 9/11 Commission did not find the evidence, because it chose not to look.

Why isn't it obvious to Paul?

Good news folks. A new paper appeared today which has a considerable virtue - it deals with just one observation which indicates explosives must have been used. As only one observation is considered it should make for simple argument and pleasantly short posts on this thread. Here it is. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt.pdf

Thanks, amoeba.

The NIST hypothesis which purports to explain the structural failure of the 92 floors on the South Tower below the floors damaged by the impact of Flight 175, requires that the top 12 undamaged floors must have fallen as a rigid block and, therefore, there must have been an impact with the lower 92 floors, which should have been recorded on the video evidence of the collapse.

However, the paper amoeba referred to shows that, from video evidence, there was no such sudden impact. The top 12 floors continued to fall smoothly beyond the point where they should have impacted.

Therefore the lower 92 floors were no longer a rigid body at the point where the top 12 floors should have impacted and must have already started to give way (whether we agree that it would have occurred after it fell only 1 floor or 6 floors or anywhere in between).

The only explanation put forward that could possibly explain this is if the strength at the top of the lower 92 floors had already been removed. That could only have been done by explosives.

In the words of the conclusion to http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt.pdf :

"We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny."

To see more questions about 9/11 for which ordinary Americans, unlike Paul, don't believe satisfactory answers have been provided, view the YouTube broadcast: "Anthony Cipriano 9/11 first Plane witness" at:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3PD372CnAgk&feature=channel_page

This part of a documentary "No smoke without fire" at http://www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk

Anthony Cipriano witnessed the first plane strike and worked as a first responder.

One of many questions which troubled him was what could possibly have been burning deep down underneath the rubble weeks after the 'collapses' of the towers:

"When I saw the smoke rising from the pile in mid-October, I wondered 'What the heck is burning down there? What could still be burning?' ... Everything that went through my mind was questioning, questioning, questioning. 'How could the buildings come down? How can there still be fires burning in the pile?'

"What happens is: To keep the dust down, they were wetting down the pile with hoses. As the water would leak and drip and go down, you had steam rising up from the pile. I was wondering why that was a factor, why that was happening.

"So, I started to do my own little private investigations on the Internet -- you know, to find out: does steel melt? How hot does it take for steel to melt? How long can something like that burn? and all I found was more questions ... no answers to my questions -- more questions on top of more questions. And then I found out that there was more people out there questioning. I thought I was going crazy."

If ordinary US citizens are capable of asking such questions, then why couldn't the 9/11 Commission and NIST?

The simple reason is that they did not want to know the answers.

Rather than conducting proper investigations, they conducted cover-ups of the crime of mass murder which was wrongly blamed on people living in Afghanistan and Iraq and used as pretext to launch bloody destructive wars against innocent people.

I commend these YouTube broadcasts of Patrick Welsh, whose first wife Debbie (Deborah) Welsh was the purser of United Airlines Flight 93 in which the passengers over-powered the hijackers after which the aircraft appears to have been shot down.

After dismissing the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement for over 2 and a half years years until early 2007, he became an outspoken spokesman for the 9/11 Truth Movement:

http://truthcanada.freeforums.org/patrick-welsh-talks-911-truth-t514.html
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvVE3nzudg