Apparently, Ships Can Drag Anchors from Egypt to Malaysia

Written By: Milton
Date: 2008-02-06 20:41:41
<a href="/article/190141698-apparently-ships-can-drag-anchors-from-egypt-to-malaysia">Article Link</a>

“Quoting TeleGeography and describing the effect the cuts had on the Internet world, Mahesh Jaishanker, executive director, Business Development and Marketing, du, said, “The submarine cable cuts in FLAG Europe-Asia cable 8.3km away from Alexandria, Egypt and SeaMeWe-4 affected at least 60 million users in India, 12 million in Pakistan, six million in Egypt and 4.7 million in Saudi Arabia.”” According to their reports, there was another cable severed that went unreported. So, here’s the list that they had of the 5 different cables: “These are SeaMeWe-4 (South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe-4) near Penang, Malaysia, the FLAG Europe-Asia near Alexandria, FLAG near the Dubai coast, FALCON near Bandar Abbas in Iran and SeaMeWe-4, also near Alexandria.” As I said: 3 was quite a few. 4 is pushing it. 5 starts to make you wonder. In case you aren’t familiar with that part of the world, here’s a map that I made which shows the approximate locations of the “cuts” in the underwater cables: We’re supposed to believe that these were most likely caused by an anchor from a ship fighting a storm. This author finds it hard to believe that this anchor was drug behind a boat from Egypt to Malaysia. So everyone is scrambling to try and figure out why this would happen. <img width="450" height="253" src="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/images/articles/20080206190141698_1.jpg" alt=""> First off, I want to thank everyone for the positive feedback that I have received for my last post, which illustrated the locations of the 5 submarine cables that have been damaged over the past couple of weeks. I’m glad to see that some news sites such as Slashdot featured my post (img) and that people are starting to take a critical look at what is happening. That being said, I’m sure that everyone is eager to read the results of my findings on why these cables may have been damaged, who has to gain from the damages, and where we, as concerned citizens, should start to look for answers. Before I begin, I would like to point out that these findings are from my own research. I am not accusing anyone of anything here. I am simply providing a resource for the rest of the internet so that people can start to investigate what may really be happening over there. There are some facts out there that are just too big to ignore. While I may not be the person capable of asking the big questions to the right people, I can still provide information for the people who can. We have been told by various organizations that these damages are attributed to power failures or by an anchor being accidentally drug along the ocean floor during a storm. However, it doesn’t take more than a 5th grade education to start to recognize that there may, in fact, be a pattern to what we are seeing here. When something like this occurs, it starts the mind roaming around the possibilities as to why this may have occurred. Well, there are a few possibilities. Here are the top 4 possibilities/connections that this author was able to find in his research: #4 - Big Telecom Companies In talking to my network operations manager about the damages that have been done to the cables, the first companies that he suggested, which stand to gain from this type of damage, are the larger telecommunications companies. Especially the land-based ones. Here’s why: when a huge pipeline providing tons of information to a particular area is damaged, re-routing almost always occurs before repair. This means, that the companies which surround the outage or are within the outage area stand to benefit from the sudden jump in needed bandwidth. So, which companies have some ties into this mess? Well, there are a few companies that popped up while doing my research. However, for the scope of this article, let’s look at Verizon Business. To start things off, Verizon partially owns the SeaMeWe-4 (along with AT&T) cable that was severed. According to them the repairs could take days but they were going to offer an alternative network as quickly as possible. Alternative meaning, routing through somewhere else. How else might Verizon be involved with this deal? Verizon Business has ownership in many of the submarine cables that have been in recent news. In addition, they began work in 2007 on a new cable that will render others obsolete. The construction for this is supposed to complete this year. (source). By Verizon Business’ own admission, they’re all about getting global: “Global Strategic Services Still Driving Solid Verizon Business Growth…Global sales of strategic services such as IP, Ethernet and managed services continued to accelerate dramatically during the past quarter, exceeding declines in revenue on a year-to-date basis from traditional core voice and data services. In the fourth quarter 2007, strategic services generated $1.4 billion in revenue, up 25.1 percent from the fourth quarter 2006.” With all that said, it seems very likely that Verizon would very much want these cables to be damaged. Whether it be to leverage their land-based networks or to further increase the popularity of their new cable, it’s hard to ignore the connections. #3 - December 2007 In December of 2007, there were a few events that occurred related directly to the damages that we have recently seen. While these events may be unrelated and/or random, the correlation is hard to ignore. December 1, 2007: Alcatel finished its merger with large U.S. telecom company Lucent. Why does this matter? Alcatel provides hardware and service to large telecommunications companies. In fact, according to their Wikipedia entry they are a “leading provider of optical transmission equipment, especially for submarine communications cable.” December 20, 2007: Reliance Communications (FLAG) finishes the multi-million dollar acquisition of U.S. based company Yipes. (source) Why is this weird? Well, Yipes provides solutions for data warehousing and multimedia communications transfer. This acquisition would bring, yet another U.S. based company, tons of pull in the global telecommunications environment: “The combination of Yipes’ enterprise Ethernet services; the private undersea cable system of FLAG Telecom, a subsidiary of Reliance Communications; and Reliance’s commitment to expansion and growth will enable the creation of a global service-delivery platform with unmatched coverage and capability.” December, 2007: Iran announced that they were freely trading oil without the use of the U.S. dollar. More details about this a bit later in the post. While there were other notable events in the global telecommunications field in 2007, December seemed to be particularly full of events that could possibly be related to the recent submarine cable damages. #2 - Reliance Communications and FLAG First of all, you need to understand that Reliance Communications is part of a large huge massive company that, grouped with Reliance Telecom and Flag Telecom, makes up Reliance Communications Ventures. They provide solutions for all kinds of telecommunication services for India as well as other countries. As an example (and to tie them even closer to the Middle East), in June of 2006, Reliance Communications along with Orbit Communications Company launched RiTV in the Middle East. This is an interactive multimedia solution including on-demand entertainment and internet access. (source). Reliance Communications is the leading broadband service provider in India and part of another massive group of companies known as the Reliance Power Limited (RPL). Here again, we see a direct tie into a large mostly-considered U.S. company. It’s a little company called Chevron. How big of a stake does Chevron have here? How about a 5% (that can increase to 29%) stake in RPL? (source) Why would Chevron be interested in an Indian energy company? Jamnagar. That link leads to the Wikipedia entry for the Indian state. That link, however, does not talk about how important a role RPL plays in that state — important read as: 650,000 barrels per day. But that’s just the refinery that is currently there. RPL is working on a new refinery that will have a capacity of 580,000 barrels a day. That’s 1,230,000 barrels of oil money that will be coming out of Jamnagar every day. It is expected that this refinery will be completed this year. (source) The Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group is far too large to try and track down the various connections that they may have to the Middle East, but, being that it is one of the companies most tightly knitted into this knot of submarine cable woes, they deserve a mention. This brings us to the number 1 reason that this author has found which could explain the recent submarine cable damages. #1 - The Iranian Oil Bourse Through the research that I have exhaustingly done over the past few days, this is the one that has struck me as the most likely reason for the damages that have occurred to submarine internet cables. First, a bit of background. A bourse is a, typically European, word which refers to a stock exchange. Great, so Iran is going to have their own “oil stock exchange,” but why does this matter? The Iranian oil bourse was going to be a stock market for petroluem, petrochemicals and gas. What’s the big catch here? The exchange planned on being ran with currencies excluding the U.S. dollar. If you remember from earlier in the post, Iran stopped allowing purchases of their oil with the U.S. dollar in December of 2007. So, obviously, the U.S. is not going to be happy about this. The biggest piece of information linking this to the recent damages is the proposed location of the bourse: the island of Kish. This is the island that is RIGHT NEXT TO at least two of the cuts that have recently occurred: <img width="393" height="246" src="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/images/articles/20080206190141698_2.jpg" alt=""> And the locations of the cable damages once more: <img width="450" height="253" src="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/images/articles/20080206190141698_3.jpg" alt=""> To make matters even more interesting, the bourse was scheduled to open this month. Some of you may suddenly be thinking to yourselves that this sounds familiar. That’s because the last person who decided to stop using the U.S. dollar for trading oil was a man by the name of Saddam Hussein in the fall of 2000. As I said before, these are bits of information that hopefully others can use as a resource to determine the true cause of these massive internet outages that we have seen over the last couple weeks. I am not blaming one source or the other. I am simply helping to increase the awareness of what may really be happening right under our noses. “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” - Albert Einstein If you have additional information or updates to this, please drop me a line. My email address is writer at ilovebonnie.net. The url for this story is <a href="http://www.ilovebonnie.net/2008/02/06/apparently-ships-can-drag-anchors-from-egypt-to-malaysia/">ilovebonnie</a>.

Many thanks for this one Milton.

---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

Sorry Milton, but this is exactally how the tinfoil brigade get started down a road to nowhere. Firstly, cable cuts happen with great frequency. Once every 3 days. That's why so much cable is laid down to begin with, as plan 'B'. 
 
One of these 'cuts' isn't - it's the result of faulty networking equipment, and happened weeks ago. 
 
Coincidence is not causality! 
 
<a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/who-cut-the-cab.html">http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/who-cut-the-cab.html</a>--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"The road to nowhere"??

I admit there's a lot of whacked stuff spewed out in cyberland, but do bloggers and independent researchers exposing the worst crimes in modern history (light years before the mainstream media) count as "tinfoil hat brigaders" in your book?

People have all the reason in the world to be suspicious these days. Can't fault anyone for being on their toes considering the stunts that've been pulled over the years. But I suppose you can't fault people for wanting to keep their heads in the sand either. Sometimes I wish I could.

First I wanna say thanks for the post, I'm glad (some of) you have enjoyed my post. 
 
Second, I'd like to say that my latest post deals with the 'tin-foil hat' craze that has gripped the internet tighter than a virgin sucking on a lemon. 
 
Here's a link: 
<a href="http://www.ilovebonnie.net/2008/02/09/were-all-up-in-your-internets-cutting-all-yur-cablez/">http://www.ilovebonnie.net/2008/02/09/were-all-up-in-your-internets-cutting-all-yur-cablez/</a>

"I admit there's a lot of whacked stuff spewed out in cyberland, but do bloggers and independent researchers exposing the worst crimes in modern history (light years before the mainstream media) count as "tinfoil hat brigaders" in your book?"

No, people who jump on bandwagons without doing their skull sweat are. They end up repeating the same fallicies for years, and when questioned can't defend their position because of it.

The Internet rumours such as 'Iran internet offline' only add to it, while anyone can Google the President of Iran's website, load it and see it is still online. This is an example of how the MSM takes advantage of the sheeple.

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

Glad to have you here.

As you say in your post: "This author finds it hard to believe that this anchor was drug behind a boat from Egypt to Malaysia."

The author (and the title of this article) assumes it was only 1 ship responsible. As my Wired article states, a cable cut happens every 3 days, somewhere in the world. 4 in a week isn't abnormal. There are 25 cable repair ships working 24/7 to repair all these cables.

It happens so often, is an industry on it's own.

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

"They end up repeating the same fallicies for years, and when questioned can't defend their position because of it."

As with your continual defense of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, despite overwhelming evidence that contradicts it with no ability to mount a reasonable defense. Sorry, but I had to say that because it's true.

I do however agree that the cable cutting, while it should be monitored and investigated (for good reason as suggested by suck1tup), currently from what I can see there's nothing to be concerned about. In fact I thought about posting the story in here a couple of times, but the research I did turned up nothing, so I nixed it.

The so-called "good guys" sometimes will spew forth plenty of crap, and many stories come from disinfo agents who are working for the other side in an attempt to confuse and discredit those who are working against them.

I will echo your advice DC, do your homework before jumping on any band-wagon! I'll add that you should be especially vigilant towards stories that cater to your own personal bias, since you'll tend to take the story in at face value. The bottom line is that you cannot believe anything at face value these days, but with only a little bit of effort, you can get a very good sense of what's most likely to be true and what's not.

"As with your continual defense of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, despite overwhelming evidence that contradicts it with no ability to mount a reasonable defense. Sorry, but I had to say that because it's true."

True? On the contrary, there is no evidence disproving the official story - there is only opinion. There is therefore no need for me to disprove the evidence that doesn't exist. Although, I have seen opinions by experts on every single point you've made, debunking the conspiracy theories. But I'm loath to point links to them, for the same reason I am to point to the deniers as well. It only distracts us from the other woll over our eyes.

I've done my research, and found the alternate explanations lacking. I prefer to attribute to stupidity and incompetence what some attribute to black ops and conspiracy.

"The bottom line is that you cannot believe anything at face value these days, but with only a little bit of effort, you can get a very good sense of what's most likely to be true and what's not."

Sage advice. Believe 80% of what you see, and 10% of what you read. 5% in Newfoundland.

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

"It happens so often, is an industry on it's own." 
 
There's even an organisation dedicated towards protecting these cables. 
 
International Cable Protection Committee 
<a href="http://www.iscpc.org/">http://www.iscpc.org/</a>

"there is only opinion"

How fast the buildings fell, which has been clocked at near free fall speed, is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of careful measurement using the available video footage recorded by several different sources.

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.

In order for any solid intact structure to fall without resistance, some force has to kick away the intact structure below the falling mass *before* it can resist the falling mass which would otherwise slow it down.

Without resorting to opinion, one must conclude that somehow the intact structure below the falling mass for each building had to progressively jump out of the way as the building fell, and it had to do so in a way that was perfectly symmetric because there was no sign of an asymmetric collapse.

The only known force that can cut away a massively large steel structure in such a well timed and symmetric manner, is through a controlled demolition, which had to have been installed before the airplanes hit each building (only two were hit, WTC 7 was not hit, but fell near free fall anyway).

If I'm expressing opinion, where is it?

There's of course much more, and I'm only touching on one aspect of many that is not in any way based on opinion.

"How fast the buildings fell, which has been clocked at near free fall speed, is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of careful measurement using the available video footage recorded by several different sources."

It is opinion, because a building is in freefall all the time. It is simply stopped from falling by things that support it, like walls. Remove the wall, it returns to freefall. Those are the laws of physics.

"Without resorting to opinion, one must conclude that somehow the intact structure below the falling mass for each building had to progressively jump out of the way as the building fell, and it had to do so in a way that was perfectly symmetric because there was no sign of an asymmetric collapse."

Again opinion, because you must ignore buildings across the street that were damaged by falling debris. Besides, Newton's laws state that an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The building, when it resumes freefall because the things supporting it ware removed, will fall straight down. Grade 6 Physics.

"The only known force that can cut away a massively large steel structure in such a well timed and symmetric manner, is through a controlled demolition,"

But, for explosives, remarkably silent, using magic detonators.

I though the originator of the demolition theory was now going with the theory of 'death rays' to explain the collapse?

" which had to have been installed before the airplanes hit each building"

by port authority ninjas in only a half hour.

"(only two were hit, WTC 7 was not hit, but fell near free fall anyway)."

Again, another demolition that was completely missing the sound of the explosions . . .

But, let's suspend reality for a minute and assume that the buildings were indeed packed with explosives and magic detonators long before the planes hit (and no one working there noticed the bare columns and all the wiring), and that the planes didn't destroy the wiring needed to detonate the charges when they hit the building . . .

Why bother smacking planes into the building? The building is wired, all you have to do is blow it, and blame 'terrorists' for a truck bomb in the garage, or finger them for planting the explosives. Why risk cutting the detonators by smacking a plane into the building? Why do it at 8:45, before many people are at work? Why not at 10:30 when the maximum casualties can be assured?

"If I'm expressing opinion, where is it?"

It's in ignoring reality. In science, a good theory is indicated when it not only explains all the observed data, but when it answers questions without making assumptions and creating more questions. I haven't found an alternate explanation that didn't demand the reader to suspend their own beliefs and ask them to believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Saying thing like 'the only known force that can cut away a massively large steel structure' ignores the force that we all experience all the time - gravity. Saying the buildings were demolished ignores the experience of people who demolish buildings for a living and the report from engineers who show using available knowledge that things happened exactally the way we saw them. One has to ignore questions like 'where are the explosions?' 'How were the explosives detonated?' 'Who put them there?'

Opinion is 'molten steel weeks later is proof of thermite/demolition' when thermite has never caused such a thing, and molten steel has never been found in a demolished building - ever.

"There's of course much more, and I'm only touching on one aspect of many that is not in any way based on opinion."

Of course there is, but it all is opinion. Show me proof, the smoking gun, the 'deep throat' informant. Someone who planted the explosives, or a trail to people who did so, someone who worked there who saw the people planting explosives . . . something not based on someone quoting someone else as an 'expert' who based their opinion on some other unnamed 'expert'.

Discredit the people who were standing on the Pentagon lawn, or who removed plane debris from the Pentagon. Until there is solid evidence that disproves the official solid evidence - it's opinion.

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

"Remove the wall, it returns to freefall. Those are the laws of physics." 
 
So what instantly kicked away the "walls" (the supporting structure) so that it could no longer resist the falling mass resulting in a collapse at near free fall speed? The only known force that can do such a thing in a symmetric manner that's perfectly timed (as the falling mass fell) is a controlled demolition. There's no opinion with saying that and you are completely side-stepping this reality. 
 
"The building, when it resumes freefall because the things supporting it ware removed, will fall straight down. Grade 6 Physics." 
 
That's some fancy foot dancing on your part, but you're failing to say anything about the free fall problem that directly contradicts the official "pancake" theory, which to my knowledge is the only official explanation given for the collapses. 
 
"But, for explosives, remarkably silent, using magic detonators." 
 
What are you suggesting, that no one heard or saw the massive explosions that were heard and well documented on video along with the sound, never mind the hundreds of eye witnesses? 
 
"I though the originator of the demolition theory was now going with the theory of 'death rays' to explain the collapse?" 
 
Resorting to the old poisoning the well fallacy I see. No one who is serious and in their right minds is suggesting 'death rays' since there's simply no evidence to back up such a claim, and it seems only people who cannot defend the official 9/11 conspiracy with reasoned debate bring up such a thing. 
 
"by port authority ninjas in only a half hour." 
 
Now you are resorting to the appeal to ridicule trick. Obviously the buildings must have been prepared in advance for demolition and well before the planes crashed into them. 
 
"Again, another demolition that was completely missing the sound of the explosions . . ." 
 
The sound of explosions was missing, really? 
<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5550">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5550</a> 
4th video from top. 
 
The evidence strongly suggests that a cutting material resembling thermite was used to cut away the supporting structures of all 3 buildings prior to the use of explosives. Thermite is not an explosive and would not have made a detectable sound considering what was going on at the time (signs of white smoke and molten metal, trademarks of thermite however were detected on video). 
 
"But, let's suspend reality for a minute and assume that the buildings were indeed packed with explosives and magic detonators" 
 
Magic detonators? What are you suggesting by saying such a thing? 
 
".. long before the planes hit (and no one working there noticed the bare columns and all the wiring)," 
 
The reality is that blowing up a building when you do not care about collateral damage is far simpler than blowing up on when you want to minimize collateral damage. As for wires, ever hear about wireless? 
 
No matter how difficult you may think prewireing the buildings in secrecy with explosive was, there is no negating the fact that each of the 3 buildings fell too fast and symmetrically ((in addition to all the other supporting evidence) to be explained through any known means other than a controlled demolition. 
 
".. and that the planes didn't destroy the wiring needed to detonate the charges when they hit the building . . ." 
 
The collapse started below the point where the planes hit, therefore the wiring would have been left unaffected. Had wireless charges been used, then no wires could have been cut. 
 
"Why bother smacking planes into the building?" 
 
Shock and awe. 
 
"The building is wired, all you have to do is blow it, and blame 'terrorists' for a truck bomb in the garage, or finger them for planting the explosives." 
 
Not as convincing because the problem of prewiring would require a great deal of sophistication, privileged knowledge and access to the buildings, and since there would have been no evidence of terrorism to place blame on immediately, there would have been demands for a true forensic criminal study, which would mean that the quick destruction of critical evidence would have been much more difficult to achieve. With the plane attacks, it was a slam dunk - see the terrorists fly, BOOM, see the terrorists die (and vaporize), see the buildings fall because of the planes, Bin Laden did it - ATTACK! 
 
"Why risk cutting the detonators by smacking a plane into the building?" 
 
Explained above. 
 
"Why do it at 8:45, before many people are at work? Why not at 10:30 when the maximum casualties can be assured?" 
 
So that there were more viewers who could watch it on TV. One of the points of "shock and awe" is to ensure that there's a good audience. 
 
"Saying thing like 'the only known force that can cut away a massively large steel structure' ignores the force that we all experience all the time - gravity." 
 
You are ignoring the force that holds thing up - structural resistance. The buildings fell far too fast for there to have been a structure holding them up, which means that the structural resistance directly below the falling mass had to have been cut away in a timed and symmetrical fashion. 
 
"Saying the buildings were demolished ignores the experience of people who demolish buildings for a living and the report from engineers who show using available knowledge that things happened exactally the way we saw them." 
 
An 'appeal to authority' is not a valid argument, but if you want to play that game there is in fact a lot of experts within the realm you have mentioned who agree that the buildings were demolished through controlled demolitions. 
 
"One has to ignore questions like 'where are the explosions?" 
 
The explosions (and telltale squibs) are clearly visible on many of the available video tapes. 
 
"'How were the explosives detonated?'" 
 
The usual way. There's nothing exotic about that part. 
 
"'Who put them there?'" 
 
Likely those who stood to gain the most, and a criminal investigation by an impartial third party may be able to answer the question. 
 
"Opinion is 'molten steel weeks later is proof of thermite/demolition'" 
 
Dr Steven Jones did an analysis of the dust from the WTC site and it matched up perfectly with dust created from controlled thermite burns. 
 
"and molten steel has never been found in a demolished building - ever." 
 
The lack of thermite in demolished buildings is normal and completely expected since thermite is not used in normal demolitions. The WTC series of demolitions however were far from normal, and in this case using thermite makes a lot of sense since the demolition had to be made to look like the planes did it (or the planes were used to mask the demolitions). 
 
"Show me proof, the smoking gun ... " 
 
I did! The free fall speeds make the official collapse theory impossible to accept. In the absence of any other plausible cause that matches with *all* the available evidence, only controlled demolitions are acceptable. 
 
"... the 'deep throat' informant. Someone who planted the explosives, or a trail to people who did so, someone who worked there who saw the people planting explosives . . . something not based on someone quoting someone else as an 'expert' who based their opinion on some other unnamed 'expert'." 
 
All we need is a real unobstructed criminal investigation into the matter, and that's all anyone is asking for, which not unreasonable in the slightest, yet the US government continues to lie and obstruct the normal process of justice. 
 
Our government, as well as others, continue to use 9/11 as an excuse to wage war, toss away basic human rights, and move towards an authoritarian style of governance - all of it based on an event that lacks credibility.

Round and round we go. 
 
"So what instantly kicked away the "walls" (the supporting structure) so that it could no longer resist the falling mass resulting in a collapse at near free fall speed? The only known force that can do such a thing in a symmetric manner that's perfectly timed (as the falling mass fell) is a controlled demolition. There's no opinion with saying that and you are completely side-stepping this reality." 
 
Speaking of sidestepping reality, everything falls at 9.8M/s2. If it doesn't, that isn't reality. What could suddenly kick the walls out, and have the building in freefall? Structural failure. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it until I get my evidence otherwise. 
 
<a href="http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html">http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html</a> 
 
"That's some fancy foot dancing on your part, but you're failing to say anything about the free fall problem that directly contradicts the official "pancake" theory, which to my knowledge is the only official explanation given for the collapses." 
 
What freefall problem? Things in a gravitational field fall at a given rate. No problem. The buildings took 12 seconds to fall, plenty of time with some to spare. (110 stories, 9.8M/s2) 
 
<a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html">http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html</a> 
 
And, given that photo, I hope I won't hear 'fell in it's own footprint' again. 
 
"What are you suggesting, that no one heard or saw the massive explosions that were heard and well documented on video along with the sound, never mind the hundreds of eye witnesses?" 
 
Yes. There were no explosions caused by explosives, and none of the debris (detritus) associated with an explosion. People heard what they thought was explosions. More on that later. 
 
<a href="http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac">http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac</a> 
 
"Resorting to the old poisoning the well fallacy I see. No one who is serious and in their right minds is suggesting 'death rays' since there's simply no evidence to back up such a claim, and it seems only people who cannot defend the official 9/11 conspiracy with reasoned debate bring up such a thing." 
 
I only bring it it up, because it's true. Some time ago someone asked me to prove hw a bunch of cars in the area all got burned in the same manner without catching fire. 
 
<a href="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread274133/pg1">http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread274133/pg1</a> 
 
"Now you are resorting to the appeal to ridicule trick. Obviously the buildings must have been prepared in advance for demolition and well before the planes crashed into them." 
 
The answer to that is crucial to your theory. How am I expected to believe it, with that large question mark hanging over it? 
 
"The sound of explosions was missing, really?" 
 
Yes. What happens when you fill paper bag with air, and slap your hands together? What happens to steel when you draw it apart to the point of failure? See my link to the Maniacworld video. Structural steel 'popping' can be mistaken for explosions. However, the video does not show the debris an explosion would cause, and explosions don't account for the building constricting before 'explosions' are heard. 
 
Failure of the floor supports do account for both the sound, and the observations. Good scientific method. 
 
<a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/proving_controlled_demolition.html">http://www.911myths.com/html/proving_controlled_demolition.html</a> 
 
I've posted the video of that crane collapse to demonstrate how steel failure can sound like explosions. Even the guy saying 'it's coming down!'. Perhaps we don't have to revisit this myth in 6 months again? 
 
"Magic detonators? What are you suggesting by saying such a thing? 
 
"As for wires, ever hear about wireless?" 
 
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. 
 
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. 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. 
 
"The collapse started below the point where the planes hit, therefore the wiring would have been left unaffected. Had wireless charges been used, then no wires could have been cut." 
 
So, how were the entry points of the planes controlled so well? 
 
"Not as convincing because the problem of prewiring would require a great deal of sophistication, privileged knowledge and access to the buildings," 
 
And yet, no 'civillian' saw anything? 
 
{snip} a bunch of rehashing of things already disproven . . . 
 
"Dr Steven Jones did an analysis of the dust from the WTC site and it matched up perfectly with dust created from controlled thermite burns." 
 
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. 
 
I see your Doctor, and raise you 2 reports. 
 
<a href="http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf">http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf</a> 
<a href="http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf">http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf</a> 
 
"The lack of thermite in demolished buildings is normal and completely expected since thermite is not used in normal demolitions." 
 
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. 
 
"I did! The free fall speeds make the official collapse theory impossible to accept. In the absence of any other plausible cause that matches with *all* the available evidence, only controlled demolitions are acceptable." 
 
Nope. It matches none of the evidence, except to force the square peg into the round hole. 
 
<a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm">http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm</a> 
<a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html">http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html</a> 
 
"All we need is a real unobstructed criminal investigation into the matter, and that's all anyone is asking for, which not unreasonable in the slightest, yet the US government continues to lie and obstruct the normal process of justice." 
 
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. 
 
Now, my (and the official) explanations answer questions. The alternate theories answer questions, but beg more questions in the process. I am a strong proponent of the scientific method. 
 
Which am I going to believe?--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.