I guess it's instructive that Pericles would rather launch into a long treatise on 'illeism' than, for example, discuss the evidence of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 at:

"WTC7 in Freefall" at http://911blogger.com/node/17685
"'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie" at http://911blogger.com/node/18771
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18951
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18969

daggett, you are flogging the proverbial dead horse.

>>guess it's instructive that Pericles would rather launch into a long treatise on 'illeism' than, for example, discuss the evidence of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7...<<

So I followed your links.

What I found was:

"NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors."

But hang on, where is there any evidence of controlled demolition?

You keep suggesting that a building that falls down at or close to the acceleration of gravity must, by definition have been demolished with explosives.

But you fail to make any links between the two.

So once again you can present no evidence at all, that explosives were involved.

Incidentally, I've mentioned this before: copy 'n' pasting from a conspiracy web site is no substitute for reason and rational discussion of facts. Which you seem to avoid like the plague.