Apparently, Ships Can Drag Anchors from Egypt to Malaysia

"Round and round we go." 
 
Yes, but your explanation is only believed by a few die hards because the truth is easy to defend and promote, while lies and nonsense tend to sink on their own. I can pick almost any point in the 9/11 space at random and present a convincing argument that the official 9/11 story is a lie. For example, just the actions of Bush and his handlers tell all we need to know about 9/11. 
 
"Speaking of sidestepping reality, everything falls at 9.8M/s2." 
 
Not when there's something to resist it, such as a massive building that was unaffected by fire or a plane crash. 
 
"What could suddenly kick the walls out, and have the building in freefall? Structural failure." 
 
No steel building structure has ever spontaneously exploded into small fragments and dust in all of known history, even when seriously damaged or when set on fire for days. The only force that's known to be able to vaporize buildings, are massive explosions caused by high explosives. 
 
"<a href="http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html"">http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html"</a>; 
 
The video says absolutely nothing about the parts of the building below the impact and fire zones that were left at full strength. Those parts would have been a significant barrier resisting the falling mass. Instead we see the structure disintegrate almost instantly (in fact with debris being ejected with explosive force) as the mass fell. What else but explosives could have caused the structure to explode and vaporize into dust in such a manner (symmetrically too)? 
 
"What freefall problem? Things in a gravitational field fall at a given rate. No problem." 
 
Not when the item in question is being resisted by a structure that's designed to resist the fall. 
 
"<a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html"">http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html"</a>; 
 
9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations 
Frank Legge, Ph.D. 
<a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf</a> 
 
"And, given that photo, I hope I won't hear 'fell in it's own footprint' again." 
 
None of the 3 buildings fell over, instead they fell straight down into their own footprints. The evidence for this is undeniable and available for anyone to see. What's remarkable about it, is that no steel structured building has ever collapsed fully into their own footprints for any reason other than due to controlled demolitions. 
 
"Yes. There were no explosions caused by explosives," 
 
But we can hear explosions going off, and not only that but the video evidence shows a sequence of massive explosions including timed sqibs going off well below the collapse point - all of it perfectly consistent and expected with a controlled demolition. 
 
"... and none of the debris (detritus) associated with an explosion." 
 
In addition to other debris, it has been reported that body parts were found thrown 100's of meters away, 
 
"People heard what they thought was explosions. More on that later." 
 
Not only did they hear what sounded like explosions, but they saw what looked like explosions too. Anyone can look at the high res vids which show the massive explosions going off in sequence as the buildings progressively disintegrated. 
 
"The answer to that is crucial to your theory. How am I expected to believe it, with that large question mark hanging over it?" 
 
You are expected to believe it because you have no choice in the absence of any other rational explanation, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that demonstrates the buildings were blown up on purpose. 
 
"Yes. What happens when you fill paper bag with air, and slap your hands together?" 
 
The bag explodes. 
 
"What happens to steel when you draw it apart to the point of failure?" 
 
It snaps, but what force caused the building to not only snap apart, but also turn into dust and small particles that were ejected at high speeds as the building proceeded to disintegrate? Such a thing takes a great deal of energy to make happen which was unavailable from gravity alone. 
 
"See my link to the Maniacworld video. Structural steel 'popping' can be mistaken for explosions." 
 
Perhaps, but we can see some very large explosions going off, including timed squibs. 
 
"However, the video does not show the debris an explosion would cause," 
 
Yes it does. 
 
".. and explosions don't account for the building constricting before 'explosions' are heard." 
 
The cutting from thermite was the cause of the initial collapse, brought into a controlled sequence of progressive and rapid failure through timed detonations. We can clearly see it happening on video. 
 
"Failure of the floor supports do account for both the sound, and the observations. Good scientific method." 
 
Does not account for much of anything concerning why the buildings collapsed as they did, or why the Bush regime covered up the crime scene immediately afterwards. 
 
"I've posted the video of that crane collapse to demonstrate how steel failure can sound like explosions." 
 
Sure but the crane in your example did not explode and turn into dust. 
 
"ROFLMAO. Seriously? You claim that we both have 'experts' who have opposite opinions, but show me one of your demolition experts (or any expert) that would use an RF detonator anywhere in the RF crazy atmosphere of New York City. Most demo experts won't touch an RF detonator even in deepest, darkest Africa." 
 
It does not take much of a genius to figure out how to make a wireless device work reliably even in a noisy environment. Assuming for the moment that wires were used, everything still works fine because the planes could not have cut the wires below the impact points. 
 
"Therefore, they must have used the plastic 'shock core' variety, and those need an explanation of why they weren't destroyed in the plane impacts, or subsequent fire." 
 
The fire was not much of one as shown by the video evidence, and obviously the buildings fell below the impact points where there was no fire or impact. 
 
"Now, dig through your experts, and find out why they think the explosives needed to be set on the 100th story, instead of the basement like every other demolition." 
 
It would have been far too obvious that the buildings were blown up had there been a collapse starting at the base. It just does not get any simpler than that. 
 
WTC 7 was virtually ignored by the mass media, and to this day serves as the weakest link in the official conspiracy theory because it fell in exactly the expected classic controlled demolition form, yet nothing hit the building and the fire was not extensive either. 
 
"So, how were the entry points of the planes controlled so well?" 
 
I can only guess, but since it's unlikely that there were people piloting the planes (although it is of course possible someone was flying them), the simplest explanation is that the planes were flown remotely and guided by homing beacons planted at the target points. This is not science fiction, as the US military flies remote drones routinely with high accuracy. 
 
"And yet, no 'civillian' saw anything?" 
 
Some did report strange activity. 
<a href="http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html">http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html</a> 
 
As for how could the buildings have been wired with no one noticing ... 
<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html">http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html</a> 
 
"So, what is 'thermite'? Iron powder, Aluminum Powder, and some agent to get them burning reliably. How difficult do you think it would be to finde Iron and Aluminum oxide in the collapse of a building? What's left? Sulphur." 
 
Dr Jones is an accomplished and respected scientist, and he knows how to do controlled experiments. The dust match was perfect, and you cannot get the same results from a normal collapse. 
 
"<a href="http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf"">http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf"</a>; 
 
So now I'm expected to believe that the massive synchronized and well timed explosions on video were the result of random explosions due to some highly unlikely reaction between aluminum and concrete? Now who's grasping at straws here? 
 
"<a href="http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf"">http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf"</a>; 
 
OK but an office fire alone cannot melt steel and inject sulfur into it. 
 
"The key there was 'molten steel'. Conspracy theoriest point toth emolten steel as proof of demolition, yet molten steel has never been found at the site of a demolition." 
 
Of course not, as I said earlier, thermite is normally not used to initiate controlled demolitions. However finding molten steel at the base of the collapsed buildings indicates that they were intentionally demolished, since there's no other rational explanation of how the molten metal came about. In fact he use of thermite actually makes a lot of sense for demolishing the WTC buildings considering that the intention was to make the failures look like the plane impacts were the cause. 
 
"Nope. It matches none of the evidence, except to force the square peg into the round hole." 
 
Not true. The near free fall speeds is perfectly consistent with a controlled demolition and is completely inconsistent with the official pancake theory. 
 
"If only to silence these discussions once and for all, I agree. Then we can get back to the things we have been distracted from paying attention to." 
 
Actually everything that matters the most right now has to do with 9/11. We're being force fed a police state down our throats because of it, and Canadians are being forced to pay for a filthy war in Afghanistan because of it. Everything else that's going on seems rather unimportant by comparison if you ask me. 
 
"Now, my (and the official) explanations answer questions." 
 
Actually, the official explanations are full of holes and fall short of explaining much of anything other than to point back at a frame up and cover up job. 
 
"The alternate theories answer questions, but beg more questions in the process." 
 
One of the biggest questions is how do we get the US government to "step-aside" and allow a real criminal investigation into the matter. The problem is when the government does the crime, there's no one around with the means to investigate and prosecute - other than the people at large. At this point, we need a popular revolt to see real change take place. 
 
9/11 has shown us that the government has assumed far too power, is untrustworthy, and is in fact a criminal organization in every way imaginable. 
 
"I am a strong proponent of the scientific method." 
 
If you ask me, you are clearly not.

"I can pick almost any point in the 9/11 space at random and present a convincing argument that the official 9/11 story is a lie." 
 
Ok, Let's. Your original statement: (to drag this back on some sort of topic) 
 
"Given the speed of the collapse (each of the 3 buildings), and using the currently known laws of physics, rather than opinion, it has been determined that each building fell with virtually no resistance other than from air at normal pressure." 
 
Now, my link: <a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html">http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html</a> , taking special note of the photo. 
 
1) Debris from the collapse is clearly visible well below the current point of the collapse. The debris is assumed to be 'in freefall'. If the building is in freefall as well, why is this distance so different? 
 
I choose this photo, because photos are unbiased. You seem to ignore evidence if you think the source is biased. 
 
Me: "I am a strong proponent of the scientific method." 
 
You: If you ask me, you are clearly not. 
 
You: "You are expected to believe it because you have no choice in the absence of any other rational explanation, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that demonstrates the buildings were blown up on purpose." 
 
I am to take it on 'faith', like you? 
 
Sorry RG - Game, set, match.--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"I choose this photo, because photos are unbiased. You seem to ignore evidence if you think the source is biased."

A better source of information is from the available video evidence. In the videos showing the collapse (which is actually more of a disintegration) you'll see that the buildings fell at about the same time as the debris. You are of course correct that some of the falling debris overtakes the collapsing wave towards the mid and end points of the collapse sequence, however the difference in time is very slight. The most damning part of the collapse is at the starting point where the collapse wave is actually traveling faster than free fall. You can, for example, see squibs ejecting debris well below the falling debris. This does not mean that the building is falling faster than free fall, it only means that some force is causing the building to come apart faster than the debris that is falling down behind it.

For sake of completeness, at the very beginning of the collapse, some debris starts to fall before the building goes into full collapse mode, and that initial ejection of debris is seen falling well below the collapse wave as expected.

"I am to take it on 'faith', like you?"

I'm not expecting anyone to believe anything on faith, instead the evidence proves to us that the buildings were blown up. In order to think otherwise without being able to counter the evidence at hand, then you are acting on a belief system that does not follow the scientific method.

"Sorry RG - Game, set, match."

9/11 was clearly an inside job that continues to be covered up by both government and the corporate owned press, the body of available evidence shows this to be the case with certainty.

The question is, do we allow our government and their corporate mouth pieces in the media to continue perpetrating the 9/11 lie and use it to suit their ends, or do we take a stand and put an end to it?

If we allow the 9/11 lie to continue, we can expect our government to continue to erode our basic freedoms, and to continue to engage in wars of conquest, we can also expect them to repeat 9/11-like events to manipulate us into accepting whatever agenda they want to promote, they'll do it over and over again because we're telling them that it works - it's that simple, and it's why terrorism can often work in favor of the terrorist.

"I'm not expecting anyone to believe anything on faith, instead the evidence proves to us that the buildings were blown up."

And, you don't see the contradiction there? There is no evidence, and the photo provided is a frame from one of the videos you say shows something, which is clearly does not.

"you'll see that the buildings fell at about the same time as the debris."

Nope. You'll see the falling buildings crashing into the floors below it are pulverizing the concrete floor, creating the debris as they go. Debris already created from the floors above is 'in freefall' and shows the difference between the speed of the building, and the force applied by gravity. One is 9.8m/s2, the other is much slower.

Didn't you just say the other day that you should check who gives you facts, and to check them? I gave you more than enough evidence to let you figure out how long it took for the buildings to actually collapse, yet you insist they took half the time than what you believe is reliable evidence shows.

I can understand why that is, as your argument is purely based on faith, not science. You being an all-in or all-out guy don't believe the official story because it doesn't make sense. But if you investigate the alternate theory, and found it didn't make sense ethier, you'd be nowhere.

"In order to think otherwise without being able to counter the evidence at hand, then you are acting on a belief system that does not follow the scientific method."

I have shown evidence at hand. You have the choice of investigating it for yourself, instead of parroting someone elses' version of fantasy. Yet, you insist on using the term 'squib' like it has any bearing on the discussion. (Hint - explosive detonation of concrete generates much more debris than what is shown. Which is why an area of 2-3 blocks is normal during a demolition. And demolitions don't require every floor be wired with explosives, only one. The weight of the falling building takes care of the rest. All things ignored by your fantasy explanation.)

Observation will show you, once a building that is under demolition has the supports removed by explosives on one single floor, the building is returned to freefall, and no building is designed with every floor able to support the mass of all the floors above it. Which is why demolition works in the first place. All that is needed is to show how the support for one floor is removed from WTC 1&2, and gravity and physics takes over.

The NIST has shown how support was removed from 1 floor, and that it was not demolition.

This is by definition the 'scientific method'. Here are the observations, here are the calculations, here are the theories based on both - verify them for yourself. But you'd rather parrot than learn.

I asked you earlier, what happens when you fill a paper bag with air, and smack your hands together. *pop* Now, make the paper bag out of steel and glass, and drop a 10 story building on it. You can look at any demolition to see why windows are removed before the 'pin' is pulled - the flying glass from explosive decompression of the floors above falling is dangerous for several blocks.

Which is easier to believe and demonstrate, explosive decompression; or that an army of unknown people somehow planted explosives on every floor of a 110 story building, undetected and managed to set them all off in perfect sequence even through probable aircraft and fire damage?

Occam's razor (part of the scientific method) says which is obvious. One is scientific and reproducible, the other depends on faith.

"I can pick almost any point in the 9/11 space at random and present a convincing argument that the official 9/11 story is a lie."

You have always provided a convincing argument, but it is based on supposition and fallicy. I have picked one point in the conspiracy, and shown it to be a lie. An overly complex, wholly fabricated lie. Everything else in the conspiracy depends on the buildings being demolished. That is a lie. The cake is a lie.

Why is this agenda still being pushed? Who has the most to gain?

Ethier way, we're done. I've met your criteria, and you've failed your own.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Nope. You'll see the falling buildings crashing into the floors below it are pulverizing the concrete floor, creating the debris as they go. Debris already created from the floors above is 'in freefall' and shows the difference between the speed of the building, and the force applied by gravity. One is 9.8m/s2, the other is much slower." 
 
The difference in speed is very slight which means that the floors below the free falling mass were giving the free falling mass virtually no resistance (otherwise there's be no free fall speeds) which means the floors were being blown out in a progressive manner using explosives. 
 
Since you've ignored it, I'll repeat that the collapse wave at first actually traveled faster than free fall, and the falling mass only over takes the collapse wave at about mid point which again proves that the collapse was initiated through a controlled demolition. 
 
I'll also repeat again that at the very start of the collapse initiation, some debris was ejected *before* the building stated to crumble down, therefore some of the initial falling debris is seen falling well below the collapse wave. 
 
"Didn't you just say the other day that you should check who gives you facts, and to check them? I gave you more than enough evidence to let you figure out how long it took for the buildings to actually collapse, yet you insist they took half the time than what you believe is reliable evidence shows." 
 
I agree with you, the timings for WTC 1 & 2 were between 10 and 15 seconds depending on what points were looked at (total collapse was possible as long as 15 seconds), but even with the highest time of 15 seconds the disintegration was far too quick and complete for the collapse to have been due to the pancake theory, since there would have been significant resistance to the collapse by the undamaged structure directly below the falling mass. 
 
In the case of WTC 7, it fell down at exactly free fall speeds with air resistance and I don't think there's much debate about it. 
 
"I have shown evidence at hand. You have the choice of investigating it for yourself" 
 
Actually I did look at your supplied evidence, but it was not convincing because it was flawed as I've pointed out. 
 
"Yet, you insist on using the term 'squib' like it has any bearing on the discussion." 
 
I've looked at several examples of controlled demolitions, and you can see the same squibs firing off. 
 
"And demolitions don't require every floor be wired with explosives, only one." 
 
WTC 1 & 2 were not demolished using tradition methods, and I already explained this to you including why it could not be demolished in any other way but from the top down, but you keep on referring back to the false and misleading claim that there's only one method of demolishing a building. 
 
WTC 7 on the other hand was demolished using traditional methods, and the building did fall down exactly as would be expected using the traditional method. 
 
Given that WTC 7 is the most damning evidence of controlled demolition, the controlled press as virtually ignored the event, and so has the US government with their phony investigations. The blackout was so complete that I only learned of WTC 7 something like 2 years after 9/11, and that was because I was investigating the matter on-line, having got the sense that I was being lied to. 
 
"Observation will show you, once a building that is under demolition has the supports removed by explosives on one single floor, the building is returned to freefall," 
 
That's not true at all. If you take away the top floor supports, only the top floor and above will fall down until it meets the floor below it, at which point the collapse will most likely come to a dead stop due to the resistance encountered. At best the ruble will slip off to one side and fall all the way down to the ground, again this will stop the collapse from progressing. This is normal behaviour as seen during earth quakes and other examples of structural failure (including your crane example). What happened to WTC 1 & 2 was completely unprecedented and never seen before or since. No steel structured building can completely and symmetrically disintegrate as WTC 1 & 2 did without the use of explosives. 
 
"... and no building is designed with every floor able to support the mass of all the floors above it." 
 
If that were true, then no building could stand up on its own! 
 
"Which is why demolition works in the first place. All that is needed is to show how the support for one floor is removed from WTC 1&2, and gravity and physics takes over." 
 
That's not how demolitions work. I've seen a demolition in person, and they blow out the key supports from many floors in a sequential manner. All the floors come down at the same time because of this, otherwise the building will hit the ground and stop dead without a complete collapse. I've seen an example of a demolition gone wrong where this happens. 
 
"The NIST has shown how support was removed from 1 floor, and that it was not demolition." 
 
The NIST report has been shown to be fundamentally flawed. 
<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/">http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/</a> 
 
At no point does the NIST explain how WTC 1 & 2 actually collapsed all the way down to nothing but rubble. The NIST report only attempts to explain how the fire caused the initiation of a collapse but it does not explain how the initiation resulted in a complete failure all the way down to the ground. 
 
"I asked you earlier, what happens when you fill a paper bag with air, and smack your hands together. *pop* Now, make the paper bag out of steel and glass, and drop a 10 story building on it." 
 
Buildings are not bags of steel made out of nothing but air inside. You are propagating the same old falsehoods that were used to sell us on the pancake theory. Buildings are solid structures specifically engineered and designed to resist collapse both from vertical and horizontal stress. They are redundant structures, that can support more than the weight of the building, and can be built up from the bottom to the top without the aid of external supports. 
 
"Occam's razor (part of the scientific method) says which is obvious. One is scientific and reproducible, the other depends on faith." 
 
The most obvious and simplest explanation that explains *all* of the observations both prior to, during, and after 9/11, is that elements within the US government blew up WTC 1, 2, and 7 and then unleashed a campaign of terror against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also against the US people. 
 
This is not the first time in history that the US government has been caught terrorizing its own people and others by creating false flag attacks for an excuse. 
 
"Everything else in the conspiracy depends on the buildings being demolished." 
 
Actually that's not true at all. Even if we assume that all 3 buildings had disintegrated due to the plane attacks alone, the arguments still overwhelmingly show that the US government was behind the attacks. There is a lot of evidence to back this claim up. For example there's the clearly fabricated evidence of passports from the alleged hijackers. There's the obvious cover up that ensured that there was no criminal investigation of any kind, there's the illegal destruction of evidence from the crime scene, NORAD and other government agencies involved were shown to have lied to the 9/11 commission, Bush's odd behaviour during and after the attacks. Bush was left to read books in a school instead of being immediately taken away. The excuse for war that came right on cue. The obviously fabricated Osama bin Laden video confession. The withholding of key pieces of evidence such as the airport security videos that would have captured all 19 hijackers on tape as they boarded the planes (if they actually existed). The amazing and complete failure of several components of NORAD to send off jets to intercept the hijacked planes is beyond belief unless there was a stand down order. And so on, the amount of evidence that shows that the US gov was behind the attacks is very large. 
 
What evidence there is, that has not yet been discredited, that supports the official conspiracy theory is minuscule by comparison and not at all convincing as a whole. 
 
"Why is this agenda still being pushed? Who has the most to gain?" 
 
That should be obvious. 
 
"Ethier way, we're done. I've met your criteria, and you've failed your own." 
 
I disagree. All that you've done is parroted the well worn out pancake theory that has long since been shown to be false. You've attempted to use misinformation about how buildings are normally demolished to show that WTC 1 & 2 were not demolished because they used alternative methods, which of course is complete nonsense. WTC 7 was however demolished using standard demolition methods and there's little debate about that point. The 9/11 commission did not even report on WTC 7 as if the building did not exist. The news media almost completely ignored the collapse of WTC 7 and still does to this day. The BCC makes the incredible claim that it has lost all footage of the 9/11 attacks. The NIST has still not issued a report on WTC 7 as was originally promised and so on. 
 
WTC 7 is obviously a big problem for the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias</a>--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Appeal Filed with NIST, Persuant to Earlier Request for Correction" 
<a href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf</a> 
 
The above points out the many unscientific methods used by the NIST as a means to explain the initiation of collapse of WTC 1 & 2 without the use of explosives. In addition, it is shown that the NIST continues to refuse to make available all the information it used for creating the simulations and conclusions in its final report. This is yet another example of the massive government initiated cover up of the attacks, and the result is that no one can independently verify the claims being made by the NIST, as well as the many unverifiable claims made by other government agencies, such as the FBI, CIA and so on. 
 
Note that the NIST report does *not* make any attempt to explain how WTC 1 & 2 came apart and fell all the way to the ground, it only attempts to explain how the plane impact and resulting fire caused the *start* of a collapse and does not go any further than that. To date, there's been no verifiable official explanation of how the twin towers managed to collapse all the way to the ground, and there's been no verifiable official explanation concerning the complete collapse of WTC 7. 
 
Yet you DC, despite the fact that the US government's claims cannot be independently verified (that is, are unscientific), have argued that you know how and why the twin towers (and presumably WTC 7) fell all the way down to the ground, because as you've suggested, the methods used by your explanations are somehow scientifically valid, while the methods used by everyone else are not. 
 
As shown above, you are either not telling the truth or are seriously misinformed and ignorant of how the scientific method operates. Independent verification is critical to the scientific process, and it is clear that the evidence you've presented that supposedly backs up the US governments 9/11 conspiracy theory is not independently verifiable.

"Note that the NIST report does *not* make any attempt to explain how WTC 1 & 2 came apart and fell all the way to the ground, it only attempts to explain how the plane impact and resulting fire caused the *start* of a collapse and does not go any further than that."

As I explained earlier - that is where gravity comes in. After one floor fails, it's no different than the thousands of demolitions carried out worldwide.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"As I explained earlier - that is where gravity comes in. After one floor fails, it's no different than the thousands of demolitions carried out worldwide."

As explained in the letter to the NIST, the pancake theory has no leg to stand on as it relies on nothingness for its calculations, and therefore cannot be independently verified by anyone.

We do not need an NIST investigation into the sun rising in the east. Some things are an exercise for the student, and many demolitions are done each year.

'Pancake' isn't a theory, it's regular practise.

Also, the NIST investigation was not tasked with proving the collapse. 'Appeal to authority'.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Saboteurs may have cut Mideast telecom cables: UN agency <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080218/tc_afp/gulfmideastinternet_080218163418;_ylt=AkmbFRx_gIGoB6aXHrQJBHWNOrgF">http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080218/tc_afp/gulfmideastinternet_080218163418;_ylt=AkmbFRx_gIGoB6aXHrQJBHWNOrgF</a> "We do not want to preempt the results of ongoing investigations, but we do not rule out that a deliberate act of sabotage caused the damage to the undersea cables over two weeks ago," the UN agency's head of development, Sami al-Murshed, told AFP.

"We do not need an NIST investigation into the sun rising in the east."

Actually we did need one a very a long time ago before it became understood why and how the Sun seemed to rise in the east each day. Now see my next comment ...

"Some things are an exercise for the student, and many demolitions are done each year."

The complete disintegration of buildings 1, 2 & 7 were not ordinary events in the slightest as you are implying, they are in fact unprecedented and extraordinary events. Never before have steel framed buildings collapsed as WTC 1, 2 & 7 did.

"'Pancake' isn't a theory, it's regular practise."

No it is not. Again you are displaying an amazing lack of knowledge on how demolitions actually work. Buildings that are demolished in a controlled fashion cannot fall down as they do without the use of explosives (unless under the wrecking ball which can take weeks of effort). Buildings 1, 2 & 7 disintegrated completely at near free fall speeds supposedly without the use of any strategically placed and timed explosives, yet no steel framed building has ever done such a thing before or since 9/11. Demolition crews would save a bundle if they could make buildings fall down so easily.

"Also, the NIST investigation was not tasked with proving the collapse. 'Appeal to authority'."

In fact no one has been tasked by the US government to show how the 3 WTC buildings actually managed to completely disintegrate, and those who have taken it upon themselves in frustration to do the work have been harassed, threatened, and in some cases fired from their jobs. The lack of any meaningful investigation - even of a non criminal nature - shows how deep the cover up goes, and the harassment of those who try and shed some light on the subject is so complete that it must be an organized effort.

Now in your own words you admit that it has never been shown by the establishment how each of the 3 WTC buildings managed to have collapsed as they did, yet here you are relentlessly arguing that the reasons for each collapse are well understood and has been scientifically proven by the establishment to have happened exactly as the establishment claims.

DC, I think you are still chewing on your left foot ...

"DC, I think you are still chewing on your left foot ..."

Still going on with this, are you? You made a commitment and have failed to live up to it. Instead you change the subject instead of showing any sort of proof.

"I can pick almost any point in the 9/11 space at random and present a convincing argument that the official 9/11 story is a lie."

"Given the speed of the collapse (each of the 3 buildings), and using the currently known laws of physics, rather than opinion, it has been determined that each building fell with virtually no resistance other than from air at normal pressure."

Still waiting for some sort of proof for this statement. Or any other you've made.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Still going on with this, are you? You made a commitment and have failed to live up to it. Instead you change the subject instead of showing any sort of proof." 
 
Unless I'm mistaken, the saying "chewing on your foot" refers to a situation where someone is caught contradicting themselves. I feel very confident that I did show proof that you have been contradicting yourself (see my previous post). 
 
"Still waiting for some sort of proof for this statement. Or any other you've made." 
 
This paper (PDF format) linked below sums everything up nicely, if you'll take the time to read over it: 
Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method 
Dr. Steven E. Jones 
<a href="http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf">http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf</a> 
 
The website <a href="http://journalof911studies.com/">http://journalof911studies.com/</a> is full of peer reviewed papers on the 9/11 subject, and you are welcome to challenge any of them through a submission of your own, or submit your own proofs (that can be independently verified) that confirm the official 9/11 story.