daggett: Thank for the links but seen the vids before; worn the tee and I think you need to read that linked site more thoroughly. People with much greater scientific and engineering expertise than you, me and the theorists making those vids disagree with the controlled demolition thing.

Btw you didn't answer my questions.

Btw: a thought - how do you (or we) know that the conspiracy theorists are not part of a conspiracy to undermine the Western public's confidence in their governments and in democracy?

Mebbe you're all working for the Chinese government or um ... some other regime somewhere that is aiming to supercede the US as a world power.... Dr. Claw style.

That's why I ask: how come the US/Western democracies always gets blamed? There is no shortage of people and organizations with evil intent about.

Btw I liked the way that Belly stated it, basically - why-t-f would the US need to kill a whole lot of citizens just to get into a mess in Iraq and elsewhere. It's stoopid. Illogical.

I like conspiracy theorists and theories as I said - but I think some of you need to stand back and apply the skills you're using more imaginatively - like think beyond ideas of finding evidence to justify distrust in current governments.

From evidence I've read from explosives experts who do building demolitions they indicate that to bring down A building like the nth tower and or building seven there are many things to consider. Particularly if the intention was to destroy evidence etc.
- the structural nature of the building
- where to put the explosives
- how much explosive not enough is as catastrophic as too much.
- Then the precise sequencing of the explosions.
- the different types of explosives. They don't just grab a box of c4
and stick them on the structural spots. each charge differs both in size and type of explosive substances. Some blow outward, some inward some create precise damage others are incendiary the list goes on.

My niece's hubby is one such explosives expert he recons that there would have had to have been tons of various shaped charges of several different types of explosives. All strategically placed he maintained the computer technology to do the damage to replicate the explosion would have been a bank of computers . He doubts that the explosive would have been placed over 6 month period without detection as some
some loads would have been sizable. If they had been wired then there would have been miles of wire to lay and hide without detection.
He maintains radio detonation in a building of that size and active electrical interference would have been perilous.

The literature dismisses the idea of radio controlled detonation for among other reasons,the risk of premature explosions, radio interference and discovery. Additionally the buildings were known to have had radio dead spots. Regular security sweeps of Building 7 would have detected the electronic detonation devices.

In conclusion: trucks of wires, trucks of explosives, varying degrees of size camouflaged(?). A small army of people to install, backup facilities, a truck of computer gear, interference a truck of radio detonators (1000's), security sweeps....it works on Hollywood Die Hard movies but reality? I am with Pericles here.

What hope does logic have, when faced with Arjay's total commitment to fantasies?

>>The fact still remains Belly that you,Pericles,CJ Morgan have not even attempted to disprove via logical debate any of the evidence presented.It wrong because it is wrong.What sort of twisted logic is that?<<

It is impossible, as you know, to prove a negative, which is what you continually ask others to do.

And the reality is, we don't need to.

Because even if you can convincingly knit together all the circumstantial evidence you have cobbled together, and arrive at a theory that "the building was demolished", it still fails the real-world test.

In the real world, as opposed to the world of make-believe in which you are immersed, real live actions are needed in order for an event to occur.

The story you have crocheted together would need the active connivance of a significant number of people. Not only that, they would have to have been driven by an explicit motive.

If you reduce the burden of proof to its basics - means, motive and opportunity - your theory fails on every single count.

You have failed to demonstrate the means by which the detonations occurred.

Instead, you have postulated that it might have been theoretically possible to destroy the building using explosives. Your "proof", every bit of it, is entirely circumstantial.

You also fail to determine a motive.

Who would benefit from the action, and how? The corollary to this is why would they use this particular means to achieve those ends?

As for opportunity, you have not even bothered to approach this aspect in your ramblings.

Probably for the simple reason that you cannot explain it without exposing the flimsiness of your theory.

So instead of wittering on about "freefall in a vacuum", Arjay, how about turning your attention to the basics.

Means. Motive. Opportunity.

If you can put something together on these three that is even remotely credible, it might be possible to pay attention to the rest of your pitch.

PynchMe, if we were to believe that article by people "with much greater scientific and engineering expertise than [me]" (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm) then we would have to believe that every steel-framed skyscraper in the world is effectively a massive bomb just waiting to collapse explosively to dust and debris, given the slightest jolt.

It also doesn't explain the observed 2.25 second period of free-fall of WTC 7 through 8 stories.

In any case, if all those images of the twin towers 'collapsing' are not images of those buildings being blown apart, then I would sure like to know what an explosion looks like.

Pericles, PynchMe and examinator have otherwise attempted to avoide addressing my point that the 'collapses' cannot possibly be explained without the use of explosives by demanding answers from me.

The motive for 9/11 was obvious and Pericles is being extremely dishonest in pretending not to know what it was.

It was to give the PNAC cabal then in control of the White House an excuse to launch wars that the US public would have otherwise opposed. Read for yourself:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." ("Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century" p51 at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (pdf 873K))

It is claimed that the wars have been disastrous for their interests, but that's only if we fail to understand what the true aims of those wars were.

They certainly had the means : hundreds of billions of dollars 'missing' from the Pentagon Budget before 9/11 and the opportunity: The 83 lift mechanics of Ace Elevator Company who were never investigated wh had easy access to most of the structural columns inside the towers for 9 months as just one example.

The fact that Securacom which looked after much of the security of the Twin Towers was linked to the Bush Family gives a clue how a good deal of suspicious activity in the months prior to 9/11 could have been covered up.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Anyhow, as I said, I don't have all the answers that are demanded of me.

That is why a proper inquiry should be held to find answers to those questions and a large number of other Questions about 9/11 that have not been answered by either the 9/11 Commission or the NIST 'investigations'.

The Manhatton Project,ie the development of the nuclear bomb involved 130,000 people.What you do is compartmentalise what groups within that organisation know.Only a few are allowed to see the big picture.You would only need a few to know the truth.

At the time of 911 the armed services were conducting exercises in parrallel with the reality.The same scenario happened with the London bombings.If you have a parrallel operation happening simulataneously,then you can blur the lines of reality and fiction and suddenly have honest people caught up in a treasonous plot.They have little chance of a sympathic ear but only an option to comply.Who is going to believe them? Months before 911 extensive elevator renovations were carried out in the towers.Marvin Bush, George's bother,owned that company.So we have the opportunity and also the motivation of going to war for profit and power.

Nano thermite can be painted on and is only volitile when critical temps are reached.So painters could apply this not knowing it's potential.People who work at these scenarios do so in think tanks and this is all they do.The USA spend $75 billlion pa on security and that buys a lot of clever people.If they get scientists at the Hadley Centre to cook the books,so too can they perpetrate 911.

We warned the USA that the Japs were coming at the time of Pearl Harbour,but ignored us.LIHOP.Let it happen on purpose.911 was MIHOP.Made it happen on purpose.The scientific proof is here http://ae911truth.org/ I've met Richard Gage,Prof Steven Jones,Dr Frank Legge and others of scientific credibility.The forensic science unlike climate science,is either right or wrong.

Only the little secrets need be hidden,since the really big ones are hidden by our incredulity.