Daggett, I am not even trying to explain why the building collapsed
in a manner that looked like a controlled demolition. Fact is,
to do that, you need one hell of a lot of information, which nobody
has. You guys are coming along years later, with the odd video,
claiming it must be so.

All I did was parrot a few points straight out of the Wickipedia
page that I quoted, which gave a reasonably detailed history of
the building. IMHO after reading it, is sounded more like
a bit of perhaps shonky architecture, to make maximum profits out
of the site, for everything was seemingly pushed to the limits.

When it comes to money and people, nothing surprises me. They will
do what seems like a good idea at the time, but when something
simple like sprinklers fail, results are quite different then
expected.

Interestingly when the building was rebuilt, the design was
changed to steel reinforced concrete, clearly for good reasons!

Did some welds break at critical points as one supporting member
was taken out by heat? Possibly. Nobody knows, without detailed
plans and detailed examination of the wreckage, after the collapse.

So all you are doing is claiming to know the truth, based on mere
speculation, many years after the event.

Given the tiny bit that I know about its design, from the Wickipedia
page, I certainly would not have invested any money in that building.

There's nothing to "explain", daggett

>>Pericles has yet to specifically explain what is wrong with this video<<

What the video presents is a hypothesis. Not proof, or even evidence.

The giveaway is at the end, where the voiceover says words to the effect that "once you believe there have been explosions, you see the entire event through new eyes"

Well of course you do, you goose.

But presupposing the planting and detonation of explosives is 100% certain to arrive at the conclusion that explosives have been used, is it not?

The actual concept of the hypothesis is completely sound. You make observations on events, and postulate as to their cause.

Like the sun going around the earth, for example. People can see that with their own eyes.

Here, you hypothesise that explosives were placed and used. But it is then up to you to back this up with something other than totally circumstantial evidence.

Of which you have precisely none.

I had to laugh at this one:

>>Painting [nano-thermite] on is only one means of applying it.<<

Errr... it wasn't I who suggested that it was painted on, daggett, it was Arjay.

And you are definitely stretching the truth beyond its natural limits with this one:

>>It can just as well be applied in more conventional ways as the video "Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" at http://www.911blogger.com/node/22236 http://candobetter.org/node/1743 shows.<<

The video makes no reference to the quantity or placement process required. It merely assumes that they got there somehow. As does your "letter to Kev", which somewhat superfluously asks:

>>Kevin Rudd should ask himself how Al Quaeda, operating out of Afghanistan, could have gained the access to the North Tower, which would have been necessary to plant the charges<<

This again requires an assumption that the charges were indeed there in the first place.

Which, as I pointed out, is merely an untested and uncorroborated hypothesis.

Yabby, as you should well know, Wikipedia is changed by people with huge resources that allow them to do so, such as the CIA, former Prime Minister John Howard, and Australia's Growth Lobby (see "Immigration to Australia - more the better... according to Growth Lobby submission on Wikipedia" of 4 Jan 10 at http://candobetter.org/node/1756 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia ("How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 9 February 09 by me at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0 may also be of interest)).

So I am not going to accept the veracity of any concocted after-the-fact rationales for the 'collapse', unassisted by explosives, that is, unless you can show elsewhere where they have been used by authoritative bodies to explain the 'collapse'.

---

Yabby wrote, "I am not even trying to explain why the building collapsed in a manner that looked like a controlled demolition."

Nor did the National Institute of Standards and and Technology (NIST) charged with investigating that 'collapse'.

Leading Dutch demolition Engineer Danny Danny Jowenko was at first unaware that WTC 7 'collapsed' of 11 September 2001.

When he viewed the video of the WTC 7 'collapse' he said, "They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards." When asked if he was certain, he replied: "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

("From The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009) by David Ray Griffin p122)

So, why is Danny Jowenko wrong?

Pericles wrote, "What the video presents is a hypothesis. Not proof, or even evidence."

Pericles has not acknowledged my earlier combined post of 30 December (#79233) and 31 December (#79252), where I explain why that video is proof that explosives were used to sever the corner supporting columns of the North Tower.

If Pericles won't either offer his own explanation for what was observed in that video or acknowledge that that is evidence of my hypothesis, then there is little point in continuing that discussion with him, is there?

Also Pericles should acknowledge that the the official explanation of the North Tower 'collapse' is also a hypothesis, and if he wants us to accept that hypothesis as being true, then he should produce evidence in support of his hypothesis.

Daggett, I have not examined the matter in detail, but to the
best of my knowledge, who writes and who alters stuff written for
Wickipedia, is in fact public information. If you can show that
the CIA was involved in writing about building plans for building
7, then you would indeed have reason to wonder! Do you have any
such evidence?

The fact that the construction of the building was a bit dodgy,
would be well known amongst the architectural and building community
of NY. So if the information on Wickpedia was shonky, they would
soon raise that as an issue. After all, the original building was
only built in the 1980s and 3 floors cut out etc, at a later date.

It is indeed possible that the video looked to Jowenko, as if it
were a controlled demolition, for the brain after all, works by
association.

Fact is, there could have been issues due to the way it was constructed,
welds cracking at specific points, design flaws etc,
for that being nothing more then a coinsidance, that it looked
similar, years later, on a video.

For that, one would need a copy of the plans and a detailed
inspection of the wreckage and debris, to produce the kind of
evidence required.

It is even possible that some things were noted and recorded and
even covered up at the time. But its far more likely due to be
due to fear of litigation against the builders, architects or
owners, litigation being rather common in the US, then just
claiming "the CIA did it".

Unless of course, I wanted to sell books to conspiracy nuts, for
clearly that is a highly profitable industry :)

Doesn't wash, daggett.

>>Pericles has not acknowledged my earlier combined post of 30 December (#79233) and 31 December (#79252), where I explain why that video is proof that explosives were used to sever the corner supporting columns of the North Tower.<<

You may "explain why that video is proof" until you are blue in the face, daggett - and no doubt will.

But you should know by now that constant repetition of an unsupported frog of a hypothesis will never magically turn it into the handsome prince of truth.

>>If Pericles won't either offer his own explanation for what was observed in that video or acknowledge that that is evidence of my hypothesis, then there is little point in continuing that discussion with him, is there?<<

Suit yourself, daggett.

Unlike you, I am prepared to accept that the building collapsed without the aid of internally-placed explosives. That is therefore "my own explanation".

Of course, exactly like yours, it is based entirely on the work of others.

>>Also Pericles should acknowledge that the the official explanation of the North Tower 'collapse' is also a hypothesis, and if he wants us to accept that hypothesis as being true, then he should produce evidence in support of his hypothesis.<<

It is not up to me to produce any evidence whatsoever, given that I am totally at ease with the official determination. It has a huge advantage over alternate theories, in that it is wholly credible.

Unlike you, who has some kind of vested political interest in the promotion of conspiracy theories, I have no reason to question an existing, totally credible theory, that can only be attacked with the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

Interpreting puffs of smoke on a video as conclusive evidence that explosives were somehow covertly introduced to the building, placed in key locations, and simultaneously detonated in order to further some vague ambition for world domination is, I am afraid, the wildest of fantasies.