I do understand how this must be frustrating for you, daggett.

>>So, when do you intend to put the arguments, that you would have us believe to be gospel from the NIST FAQ page and the Popular Mechanics page so that the rest of us can evaluate their merit?<<

The arguments are there for you to read for yourself. In much the same way that you keep referring the world to the 9/11 conspiracy sites.

You see, daggett, they are no more "my" arguments than the conspiracy-nut position is "your" argument. You have simply latched on to someone else's fantasy, and away you go.

We have a different view of life, that's all.

When I see a simple explanation, that does not need any suspension of disbelief, I tend to find it convincing. You reject it, because it has been promulgated by "the system" that you hate.

You see a convoluted theory based on circumstantial evidence, and immediately embrace it, simply because it purportedly exposes "the system" that you despise.

Forget for a moment that the logistics are impossible to explain ("but I am not here to completely solve the crime"), and that the "eye-witness accounts" are themselves mere speculation. You are swept along by the sheer excitement of the possibility that there has been a massive cover-up, and choose to ignore the bare realities. It's like a movie to you. Full of cloak-and-dagger machinations, and governmental duplicity. How much more exciting than real life!

I can understand how mundane and boring the rest of your life must be, that you cling to the possibility that you have uncovered a world-wide plot, and that you will single-handedly bring the world's governments to their knees with your stunning revelations.

Everyone needs a hobby.

And your hobby is "conspiracies".

I don't expect to convince you that what you are doing is a pointless waste of time, in much the same way as I couldn't dissuade someone from collecting beer mats as a hobby for the same reason.

Just don't expect me to admire your beer-mat collection.

Pericles wrote, "You see a convoluted theory based on circumstantial evidence, and immediately embrace it, ..."

Pericles, it's now over 8 years since the September 11 attacks. How do you happen to know that I "immediately embracre[d]" the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

---

Pericles wrote, "The arguments are there for you to read for yourself. ..."

I don't need to read any of that again, thank you very much. I am already more than familiar enough with all those arguments to know that any one of those can be rebutted barely at the blink of an eyelid.

Why won't you prove me wrong?

Why won't you substantiate your claim:

"It's not that your arguments need to be rebutted. Many others, in many other web sites, have done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists."

?

---

Pericles wrote, "Forget for a moment that the logistics are impossible to explain. ..."

You have not demonstrated that the logistics are impossible to explain. Please read again my post dated 28 January at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=17

---

Pericles wrote, "When I see a simple explanation, that does not need any suspension of disbelief, I tend to find it convincing. ..."

You have said this before.

So, again I ask:

Pericles, are you also 'convinc[ed]' that compressed air alone could force that plume of debris through solid concrete on the corner of the North Tower and sever the supporting columns, as shown in that video at http://candobetter.org/node/1743 http://911blogger.com/node/22236 ?

It's a perfectly simple question.

If you accept the official explanation, you will answer 'yes'.

If you reject the official explanation, you will answer 'no'.

It's most thoughtful of you to ask, daggett.

>>It's a perfectly simple question. If you accept the official explanation, you will answer 'yes'. If you reject the official explanation, you will answer 'no'.<<

But I have already made my position clear.

Crystal clear, in my view.

If you still don't get it, I doubt you ever will. At least, not until you grow out of this "aren't conspiracy theories exciting" phase.

Mostly it happens to people earlier in life. But there's no shame in having a hobby. Just don't expect everyone else to get as excited about it as you.

daggett: I hope I may answer your question too - my answer is that I can't see any reason not to accept the official version.

Just imagine a chubby in a tightly buttoned shirt. One button snaps and then the next and it's pop, pop, pop as pressure is increased on a reducing number of buttons.

There was intense heat - enough to weaken steel. It looked to me like whatever supports there were just did the same thing as there were fewer of them holding up the descending weight. That is, as Pericles summarized a way back - what we saw in the films was a result of the building/s falling down.

Since you haven't been able to even consider my question, much less answer it - because you think it's stoopid. (It was why you leap to blaming the government instead of considering other potential vested interests) - are you ready yet to tell me about Marilyn ?

If you aren't going to get onto something more interesting, such as Marilyn, I'm calling it a day on this thread.

Thanks
Pynch

Pericles refuses to answer a perfectly simple straightforward question (and only one of many). Instead he insists that he has "already made [his] position [crystal] clear [in his view]."

It's certainly "crystal clear" to me that if we were to accept his claim that each of the Twin Towers collapsed to dust in around 15 seconds, without explosives having been used, in a manner that has never occurred before or since, then a number of impossible conclusions necessarily follow.

One is that the mere force of air somehow supposedly trapped within the building must have caused those violent ejections of debris through the solid concrete face on the corner of the North Tower as captured in the stills at http://candobetter.org/files/CutterCharge2.jpg http://candobetter.org/files/CutterCharge6.jpg from the video at http://911blogger.com/node/22236 http://candobetter.org/node/1743

Pericles asks us to accept that his view as "straightforward and factual" but is not prepared to defend on this forum the conclusions that follow from his view.

Pericles wrote, "If you still don't get it, I doubt you ever will. ..."

I somehow doubt that I would be altogether alone there, Pericles.

Pericles continued, "... At least, not until you grow out of this "aren't conspiracy theories exciting" phase. ... (rant, blah, blah, rant)."

You have already put that 'argument' several times before.

How many more times do you believe it necessary to repeat it?

---

PynchMe wrote, "Just imagine a chubby in a tightly buttoned shirt. One button snaps and then the next and it's pop, pop, pop ..."

As I asked of Pericles, before, in response to his "explanation" that "it's a building collapsing":

If it was all that easy to explain, why do you think they went to all the trouble and expense to set up the NIST (so-called) investigation?

Pericles, IMHO daggett should pay you for an accurate and so far
free psychology consultation. But people are commonly in denial etc.

Daggett, you probably never will get it, it would be boring, but
the real problem when those buildings collapsed, was once again,
good old Govt bungling.

When planes crash, there is a designated Govt authority, legislated
for and funded, to have a team of experts on the scene within hours,
to investigate. With buildings collapsing, there was simply no
such authority. The wheels of Govt never do turn too quickly,
so it took months and months, just to pass legislation and organise
funding, for a Govt vehicle to be set up to do exactly that.

Meantime the streets of NY were a mess, debris needed clearing,
private enterprise works efficiently and quickly, stuff was carted
away for dumping or recycling, tens of thousands of truckloads.

The whole conspiracy story that you raise, came much much later.
Not much of signifance happens these days, without somebody coming
up with a conspiracy theory, it is seemingly a large industry,
with many making a good living from it.

The growth of the internet would have seen to it that their
business soars, for now they can market their wares globally