Pericles, I am not the person who claims that this discussion is pointless.

So, how about, instead of endlessly repeating your ad hominem attacks against me, substantiating the claims you have made about the issues at hand, as I requested above on 26 January (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=16), so that this discussion can move forward?

Classic, daggett, Classic.

It is of course a standard ploy for conspiracy nuts to say "here is my stupid idea, prove me wrong". It's like a creationist handing you a fossil, and saying "I reckon this is only 3,000 years old. Prove it isn't"

The only response to which is "why tf should I?"

And you come up with the same old song, daggett. Why should it be up to me to sift through your garbage, yet again? I have said all that is necessary to explain to you that the theories that you are peddling do not, and will not, hold water. They are just a hotchpotch of circumstance, happenstance and wild assumptions. When challenged to suggest how, in this wide world of ours, such a conspiracy could be carried out, all I get is:

>>I am not here to completely solve the crime<<

Which is daggett-speak for "I haven't a clue, but I can't possibly admit that to you, now can I?"

If I may quote your very own words:

>>It's clear that someone determined to uphold a lie will never be 'convinced'.<<

You have demonstrated time and again your gullibility for any old story that washes around, so obviously nothing that I can say has the slightest chance to persuade you that you are barking.

Sorry, that should read, barking up the wrong tree.

The only way you are ever going to get this out of your system is to admit to yourself that 1+1=2, and stop trying to force fit it into a symplectic matrix that gives you the answer 42.

It's a bit like alcoholism. The patient has to realize for themselves that they need to be cured. Until then, all exhortations to "pull yourself together, man" fall on deaf ears.

Are you getting the picture yet?

Pericles wrote, "I have said all that is necessary ..."

Does this mean that you have already explained how fire alone caused WTC 7 to lose all its structural strength in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0)?

So, are you going to let Arjay know that has lost his bet (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034#162380) with you and that he now has to write out that $10,000 cheque for victims of the Haitian earthquake?

Dang. Saw this thread at the top of the list and thought we might have a new conspiracy on the boil or at least another oldie that's interesting; like Marilyn. Or how about Michael Jackson. Surely we can think of some way to turn him into a CIA operative or summin.

Daggett I'm getting the urge to reach through my puter screen to shake you. We talked about the stoopid fire and collapse stuff a way long time ago. Puhleeze - it's time to move on.

Pynchme,

You're welcome to "move on" from this thread any time you like. No-one is forcing you to read any of this.

Since you are so interested in conspiracy theories about the deaths of Michael Jackson and Marilyn Monroe, why don't you start forum discussion of your own?

Pynchme wrote, "We talked about the stoopid fire and collapse stuff a way long time ago."

Where was it ever explained how fire alone caused the complete collapse of WTC 7 in only 6.5 sec, and with the first 2.25 seconds of collapse at free-fall acceleration?

If that hasn't been explained, then why shouldn't the hypothesis of a controlled demolition be investigated?

After a fashion, daggett.

>>Pericles wrote, "I have said all that is necessary ..." Does this mean that you have already explained how fire alone caused WTC 7 to lose all its structural strength in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds<<

It means that I find absolutely no reason to attempt an "explanation" of pure conjecture.

How do you know that WTC7 lost all its structural strength "in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds"?

Once you can tell me that, without either resorting to a "cut 'n' paste" from a conspiracy web site, or simply hiding behind yet another pointless URL, I will explain to you how it could have been caused by fire.

Until that point, we are simply dealing with a conjecture. And by definition, there is no argument against conjecture - everyone is free to indulge in them to their heart's content.

The main difference between us in approaching the topic is that when I see your conjecture (explosives caused the building's collapse), I try to fit that hypothesis into the real world. The one we live in, every day, that is filled with real people going about their business in a totally ordinary way.

To plant, then coordinate the detonation of, the necessary "hundreds of tonnes" of explosives necessary (Neil Harrit's figures, not mine) would take an organizational genius that only exists in Hollywood movie scripts.

That's why arguing the toss about free-fall speeds is entirely irrelevant.

Think of it this way, daggett. If you can answer the following simple "police procedural" questions without making me laugh out loud, we might be able to continue the discussion.

Means. Motive. Opportunity.

However, I think you might be stuck for an answer to any of them. As you say each time you are challenged:

>>I am not here to completely solve the crime<<

Fact is, you couldn't even make it to first base with any of these three "starter" questions. You simply pick a random theory out of the air, then build a story on top of it.

Easy - and probably fun - to do. But pointless.