Pericles wrote,

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

Because, Pericles, WTC 7 was standing at the commencement of that 2.25 second period. Therefore the structural strength had to have been there at that point in time. The fact that it fell at free fall acceleration through 8 floors in 2.25 seconds must mean that all the strength in those 8 floors that was there at the commencement of the fall must have all been lost at the end of that period. If not the acceleration would have been observed to have been measurably less than free fall acceleration.

As both Arjay and David Chandler have said, that is Year 10 Physics.

Pericles wrote, "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."

What rubbish!

Firstly the principles of building demolition would have been well understood. Of course a lot of care would have had to have been taken to have ensured that the preparations would not have been noticed by the wrong people and recognised at the time for what they were, but to argue that therefore it was impossible is an entirely different matter.

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

You have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would not have been possible.

In contrast, my understanding of the laws of physics tells me that it would have been impossible for WTC 7 to have collapsed in the way it was observed to have collapsed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0) through the effects of fire alone.

So, how about proving myself, Arjay and David Chandler wrong on that question in order to win your $10,000 bet with Arjay?

You see, daggett, this is a classic symptom of the problem you are having with reality.

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

Because, Pericles, WTC 7 was standing at the commencement of that 2.25 second period.<<

In the millisecond before your "2.25 second period", those eight floors had already lost all their structural strength, and were on the verge of collapse for that reason.

And this.

>>Firstly the principles of building demolition would have been well understood. Of course a lot of care would have had to have been taken to have ensured that the preparations would not have been noticed by the wrong people and recognised at the time for what they were, but to argue that therefore it was impossible is an entirely different matter.<<

Well understood, by whom? A lot of care was taken, by whom?

You haven't even begun to make a case for the plausibility of your scenario. You really must get a grip - this is not a Hollywood script, this is about real people in real situations.

The fact that it might not be theoretically "impossible" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, suddenly make it possible. Hollywood works on the principle of "suspension of disbelief". They rely on it for practically every scene in the "Die Hard" series.

But any eight year-old with half a brain can see that - although it is "theoretically" possible to "throw yourself off the thirty-fifth floor of a building that’s about to explode, only tied to the roof with a fire hose", it is still pure fantasy.

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/die-hard-top-20-moments.html

>>You have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would not have been possible.<<

Correction: you have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would have been possible.

And are unlikely to.

And let's keep a sense of reality on this as well, while we are about it.

>>So, how about proving myself, Arjay and David Chandler wrong on that question in order to win your $10,000 bet with Arjay?<<

As you should be aware, Arjay has not yet sorted out who will decide the winner of this bet, so it is still a figment of his imagination, like everything else.

And if you think David Chandler has a shred of credibility in all this, think again

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-will-david-chandler-fix-his-errors.html

"I probably divided by 2 instead of multiplying by 2 inside the radical. I probably shouldn't do these things in my head."

That's no really a good look, is it? We're supposed to believe someone who makes such fundamental errors as multiplying two numbers together, instead of dividing one into the other?

I particularly noted this point made about Chandler.

"Chandler mentions that the movie which turned him into a 9-11 Troofer was Eric Hufschmid's Painful Deceptions"

Not *this* Eric Hufschmid, by any chance?

http://www.erichufschmid.net/StopNaziCoverup.html

Reminds me of one of my favourite poems:

""You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses,"
Then the pig got up and slowly walked away."

http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiPIGINEB4.html

Have a great day.

Pericles wrote:

"In the millisecond before your '2.25 second period', those eight floors had already lost all their structural strength, and were on the verge of collapse for that reason."

Why "the millisecond before"?

Whatever point in time it was that the strength was lost is the point at which the collapse would have commenced. To claim otherwise is to claim that the huge mass of WTC 7 would have remained suspended in defiance of the laws of gravity.

Whether all the structural strength on all 8 floors was lost progressively floor-by-floor within that 2.25 second interval or virtually instantaneously in a time interval of 1 millisecond at the very outset, as you now claim, you has still failed to explain how it could have been caused by fire alone.

Pericles wrote "[building demolition techniques are] well understood, by whom? ..."

The US military and intelligence has expertise in almost every conceivable aspect of causing death and destruction including, for example, the sabotage of bridges. The complete destruction of a steel framed high rise buildings would not have been that far removed from that field of knowledge, even if it may have been outside of their normal contingencies prior to 2001. I don't see how acquiring that additional knowledge from others who well understand those technques would have posed any inordinate difficulties for them with all their money and resources.

Do you?

Pericles then attempts to imply that the relatively mundane task of placing the necessary demolition explosives within the three WTC buildings -- obtaining the cooperation of the building management, providing plausible justification (e.g. upgrading the lift system) for the presence of the saboteurs that would conceal from casual onlookers their true purpose and having the building security ensure that no-one gets close enough to see what is really going on -- somehow is equivalent to the spectacular, daring and almost impossible feats performed in the "Die Hard" movies.

(tobecontinued)

(tobecontinuedfromabove)

Pericles wrote, "you have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would have been possible."

If it has not been conclusively shown that that would have been impossible then, logically, they would have been "possible".

What has been shown to be impossible is the claim that fire alone could have caused the total destruction of WTC 7.

Only a proper investigation of the controlled demolitions hypothesis as has been demanded by the 1049 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) will be able to establish one way or the other whether or not it was impossible.

Pericles then attempts to imply that David Chandler has no credibility because:

1. Once he made the mistake of multiplying by 2 where he should have divided by 2 and publicly admitted having done so; and

2. He once found persuasive a movie made by someone who happened to be a Holocaust denier.

I don't consider that these require further comment.

I think you may be losing the plot here, daggett.

>>Why "the millisecond before"? Whatever point in time it was that the strength was lost is the point at which the collapse would have commenced<<

Errrr... exactly. So, the "millisecond before" it reached the point where the collapse commenced, it was sufficiently strong to keep the structure together. A millisecond later, it wasn't.

The reduction in strength would not be instantaneous.

Think of it this way. The millisecond before Gruber falls from the Nakatomi building, there is sufficient cohesion between his hand, Holly's Rolex and Holly herself. A millisecond later, he was on his way down.

>>you has still failed to explain how it could have been caused by fire alone.<<

One mystery at a time, daggett. Given that you're still floundering around "instantaneous" "2.25 seconds" or "gradual", I have nothing to work on.

Let me know when you decide.

>>The US military and intelligence has expertise in almost every conceivable aspect of causing death and destruction<<

You are suggesting this was a military operation? Or an "intelligence" operation?

How does that work, in the real world?

How do you persuade a bunch of grunts to effect the mass murder of their fellow-citizens?

Even in Die Hard the villains were foreign.

>>the relatively mundane task of placing the necessary demolition explosives within the three WTC buildings<<

Mundane, daggett? In your dreams.

How many tonnes were needed? How did they get into the building? Do you have even the vaguest notion of basic building security?

Your idea that this was all accomplished by a mysterious bunch of lift engineers, who were also saboteurs, the whole thing covered by bogus security guards, is very much the stuff of action movie scripts.

No-one noticed. At all.

Or (and I can almost hear your brain working on this) some people did notice.

But they have since disappeared.

Yep, that would be consistent with the rest of the fantasy.