OK, I'll bite.

>>Why was so much eyewitness testimony of the use of explosives ignored?<<

And this eye-witness testimony can be found where, daggett?

I am assuming that you have eye-witness testimony that explosives were planted, not just that some folk heard popping sounds and saw some puffs of smoke.

>>I fail to see how anyone with even a shred of compassion in them human being could "chuckle" or "giggle" at any of this.<<

It was the utter stupidity and incompetence that was being chuckled at, not the end result. As you well know.

>>Why did you presume that I only saw the pictures, Pericles?<<

Because you clearly hadn't bothered to read the words.

>>all of the Popular Mechanics article has been torn to tiny shreds by David Ray Griffin<<

There you go, quoting the work of others as if it somehow is gospel. Don't you ever think for yourself?

>>If there is anything in those pages you still maintain has not been thoroughly refuted<<

It wasn't convincing enough as a refutation in the first place.

>>Most of what I have written has been researched by others, but it still took effort on my part to read the research, comprehend it and write about it so others could understand<<

As I said, you Google a bit then copy'n'paste. 'Cos it's certain that you don't understand any of it.

For example, have you any thoughts on how it all was put together? How many people were involved, how they sourced the necessary materials, how they managed to put all these explosives in place so expertly, how they managed to coordinate the explosions, and how they remain completely undetected?

All you have is a few "if"-based suppositions, which you knit together - very loosely - into some sinister, unattributable attack on...

...and that's the other thing. Who benefitted from your version of events, and who was therefore the target?

Face it daggett. You aren't providing answers. Just material for ever wilder and wackier questions, that get you further and further away from the simple, murderous suicide attack by terrorists on prominent landmarks.

Hiya Daggett: <"PynchMe, if 9/11 had been perpetrated by groups independent of the Bush Administration and against the wishes of the Bush administration, then why did the Bush administration go to such extraordinary lengths to conceal that crime by, for example, shipping off all the evidence from the crime scene to be melted down?

Why weren't Rudi Giuliani and Larry Silverstein questioned by the 9/11 Commission about their clear prior knowledge of the 'collapses'?

Why was so much eyewitness testimony of the use of explosives ignored?">

Taking scrap metal and additional debris away is usual clean up procedure. I don't know what else anyone would expect them to do with it.

I haven't seen any evidence that Rudi Giuliani and Larry Silverstein had clear (or muddy, for that matter) prior knowledge. I think Silverstein had some sort of financial interest in the buildings though and if that is correct then he would be a candidate for investigation by THE INSURERS. I imagine any insurance company would be right on top of any effort to defraud them of umpteen million dollars. In the usual course of things, those matters are primarily between property owner and insurer; not regular gov. biz.

There was no eyewitness testimony of explosives as far as I recall from our earlier exchange and the information on the site I linked before. Some fireman said the sounds were pop, pop, pop like explosions (I think) but that doesn't mean they were caused by any explosive material rigged to go off. Sounds like that could be caused in lots of ways when a building is burning like, for example, rapid change in air pressure; air conditioning units; pipes bursting; outer layers lifting... whatever.

Pericles has avoided explaining why the 9/11 commission and NIST refused to acknowledge evidence such as in the video "9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

1st firefighter: “We made it outside. We made it about a block … ”

2nd firefighter: “We made it at least two blocks, and we started running.”

1st firefighter: (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds) “Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh …”

2nd firefighter: (making roughly similar gesture with clenched fist) “Floor by floor they started popping out.”

1st firefighter: “It was as if they had detonators … ”

2nd firefighter: “Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down.”

1st firefighter:”…planned to take down the whole building.” (gestures with hands again to mimic succession of descending explosions in synch with sounds) “Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh”

2nd firefighter: “All the way down. I was watching it and running.”
This is only one of many dozens of examples of testimony, ignored by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, I could give.

---

Pericles, I never claimed that any eyewitness had spoken of having seen the explosives being planted.

So, what is your point?

That's exactly my point, daggett.

>>Pericles, I never claimed that any eyewitness had spoken of having seen the explosives being planted. So, what is your point?<<

Your "eyewitness account" amounts to nothing more than a couple of firemen describing the sounds they heard.

They didn't say "there were detonations", which would have been an eyewitness account.

They were describing the sounds they heard. “Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh …as if they had detonators …Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down”

If that is the sum total of your "eyewitness account" for the presence of explosives, then, you must admit, it is pretty weak material.

If they had described the noise as "like a very large rabbit, farting", would you assume that at each corner of each floor there was a flatulent giant bunny?

I find the formal investigation somewhat more convincing.

"the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially."

>>Pericles has avoided explaining why the 9/11 commission and NIST refused to acknowledge evidence such as in the video "9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition"<<

It's because they had a more plausible explanation.

>>This is only one of many dozens of examples of testimony, ignored by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, I could give.<<

If they are all as convincing as this, it's probably better if you kept them to yourself.

*If they had described the noise as "like a very large rabbit, farting", would you assume that at each corner of each floor there was a flatulent giant bunny?*

Hehe Pericles, I love it! 2 Gold stars for you :)

PynchMe wrote: "Taking scrap metal and additional debris away is usual clean up procedure."

Really, PynchMe? And what is the basis for this claim?

Pynchme wrote: "... I don't know what else anyone would expect them to do with it."

How about first examining the debris in order to work out how the buildings 'collapsed'?

I would have thought that examination of the physical material (which NIST adamantly refused to do even with the few surviving samples) would have been much more likely to reveal the cause of the 'collapse' than computer simulations.

---

I wrote, "Why did you presume that I only saw the pictures, Pericles?"

Then Pericles wrote, "Because you clearly hadn't bothered to read the words."

In fact I had read the words. How can you claim to know that I had not?

---

I wrote: "all of the Popular Mechanics article has been torn to tiny shreds by David Ray Griffin."

Then Pericles wrote, "There you go, quoting the work of others as if it somehow is gospel. ..."

But aren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of?

So, why aren't you prepared to put those arguments from Popular Mechanics to this forum so that others can see how well they stand up?

---

I wrote, "Most of what I have written has been researched by others, but it still took effort on my part to read the research, comprehend it and write about it so others could understand."

Then Pericles wrote, "As I said, you Google a bit then copy'n'paste. 'Cos it's certain that you don't understand any of it."

So, why not provide an example of one of my contributions that you claim has been googled and copied and pasted?

---

Pericles wrote, "For example, have you any thoughts on how it all was put together? How many people were involved, how they sourced the necessary materials, how they managed to put all these explosives in place so expertly, how they managed to coordinate the explosions, and how they remain completely undetected?"

(tobecontinued)