OK, it's the theory that the fireball came down the liftshaft rather than the fireball coming out of the liftshaft that Rodriguez changed his story about, satisfied? In context, I think it was obvious which of these I was using "fireball" as shorthand for, and I still think this is a quibble on your part, petty and irrelevant as you say.

It looks to me as if Rodriguez is interpreting the burned man's evidence and providing his own explanation for it, first as a fireball coming down the shaft, later denying it. If he is relying on other peoples stories and has no first-hand experience, how is he so certain now that those other people were wrong? If he always thought the fireball was actually a bomb at a low level in the building, why didn't he say so in his NIST interview? Why didn't he mention it among all his claims in his 2004 lawsuit?

That apart, what are your opinions on the other areas where Roberts says that Rodriguez has lied? His conflicting accounts of his lawsuit? That he was the only witness before the 9/11 commission not to be questioned in public? How about this from Roberts, quoting Rodruigez:

Sorry, the CD charges are in the basement now? I thought you were claiming that the puffs of smoke high up were CD charges? Do you really think you could CD the top floor of a building without causing damage to the floors beneath? Why do you think that the demolition firms don't use such a technique?

Most of those people are from outside structural engineering consultancies, universities and such, only one page is NIST support staff, and what makes you think that NIST staff were only capable of playing a minor role? You don't get your name on a big report like that unless you make a contribution.

Check the actual sequence of events: NIST realised there were uncertainties in the impact parameters and also in some of the building properties, so they set up three sets of input data for their simulations, and ran all three. The baseline case was their best estimate for these input parameters, the other two cases covered the low and high ends of the plausible variation. The best fit to the data happened to be intermediate between their baseline and more severe case. They did not change the input parameters to fit the results, though on the other long thread you seemed to think it suspicious that they didn't. Now you are claiming that they did and that this is also suspicious. As I've said many times before, you can fit anything you like to your theory because it is unfalsifiable.

The witnesses on the spot didn't see the fire as limited or confined to low levels:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitness...untsofwtc7fires
and structural engineers don't seem to have your problem with the fires causing the collapse:
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

I don't know what's in the water, but I found a website listing the names and opinions, of what I can only describe as a populace affected by some sort of general paranoia syndrome. They represent a cross-section of Washington bureaucrats and ex-military ( I assume ex-military), who think the President outdid himself by helping to kill all those who died on 9-11.

This is my last ever post on this subject. You can play patty-cakes with loonies just so long, before you get sick to your stomach. And, from what I see, Washington is where a lot of cream rose to the top- and went sour.

This whole idea of twisting some historical events, playing those videos of that day in New York while outright fabricating stupid explanations for the obvious, is just so much idiocy that I have had my fill of it.

Lunatics. Young and old! Kids and grown ups, alike! Crazies! God help us. I don't know how we manage, sometimes...

I take what hazzard has to say very seriously, and I'm glad that finally someone came out to show everyone how ridiculous the conspiracy claims actually are. In fact, my greatest reason for not believing the conspiracy theories is the fact that so many people would have to be quieted, or have to agree with the motive in the first place. It would be sociologically impossible for the conspiracy claims to be true. However, most theorists do not take into account this fact, and as I have noticed:

some take immediate offense when counter-evidence is presented. I still have yet to see how it would be possible so many people to be involved in this, and so far the people I have discussed with have merely put off explaining this, or gave explanations such as bribery, or fear of death. But they have not yet made any valid arguments as to how this would be at all likely.

If turbs is talking about linear shaped charges or similar which can be heard in the WTC7 demolition, then they could easily be concealed beneath the fireproofing. The thermite charges would need to be larger units though. Anyhow, selective placement, whatever the charge type, is sufficient for concealment of the controlled demolition providing that WTC security and/or maintenance was overviewed by the ‘correct’ people.

It makes me laugh how you ‘act dumb’ when it suits. You know very well that in a controlled demolition the charges may be placed throughout the building, including at high levels to break up the structure and basement levels to destroy the supports. I am asking how a charge at the roof level could pass through up to 47 levels to damage the setup possibly at ground or basement level. Yes I really do know (not think) that demolition charges go off at high levels prior to the main supports being cut low down – as can be witnessed in many conventional controlled demolitions.



Of course… but what level and area of contribution is key. As for instance in movies where hundreds of crew are involved, the make-up artists and soundtrack composers are listed in the credits, obviously without ever getting close to having a say in the plot – they are just there to make someone else’s fiction look and sound good.



The order of events is irrelevant – we don’t know if NIST really created their extreme case in the inception stage or added it afterwards. If NIST had originally ran only with the expected case and found it did not initiate collapse they would soon have increased the damage parameters until it did. Likewise, even if the severe case as we know it did not initiate collapse I have absolutely no doubt they would have cranked up the damage levels another few notches to give the desired result… and some would still be championing how the “best fit was intermediate to the plausible variations”.

As in the other thread, let’s not miss the point here that NIST’s severe case exceeded the damage to the Towers that is observable in video evidence, ie the only damage case that NIST proved to initiate collapse was undeniably an exaggeration of reality.



Ah, Gilsanz again. Not only has he released his own ‘paper’ that happens to be so vague and inconclusive it would be laughable if held up as evidence for the ‘official’ story, but he was also a member of FEMA’s original investigation team and is listed as one of NIST’s ‘contributors’ – he gets about a bit then and is hardly the most unbiased of sources.

That is indeed what i've often said. The argument seems to be that only a few demolition experts would need to be in on it; but surely, supposing that the towers were demolished also presupposes that the planes must also have been part of the conspiracy, unless it was all an enormous coincidence and charges were planted when they heard about a hijacking plot being planned, and got them ready to set them off just at the right time? Surely, otherwise, if we're bringing the planes in as part of the plot, that means that many, many more people would have to have been in on it; staff at the airports, ATC, NORAD, pilots, those who arranged the fake planes (depending on what one's particular theory might be). All of whom were either suppressed once they'd done the job, or have never been prompted by their conscience to come forward since?

I take hazzard seriously as well; for good reason:
He is seriously adept, logical, suffers no illusions, and speaks from a platform of common sense.

So, it seems, do you Doc...Your post here describes the very heart of the implausibility of these supposedly massive conspiracies...one that's seems to esacape "believers" time and time again.

It isn't possible for so many to be involved...


However, it is...in a strange way, rather fun to watch the unqualified, CT mind argue with a qualified engineer about matters they have no real knowledge about (which is what we are observing in this thread...)!

Finally, someone with some sense.

That's what I was going to type but you got there first.....dang. But seriously, you'd have to be dumber than a bucket of frogs to believe that everybody involved & complicit in the death (murder) of 3000 of their own citizens would keep quiet about it. Not one idiot (& lets face it there are plenty of them out there) going to the press to spill the beans.

Only select individuals in the Bush Administration would need to be ‘in the know’. There is a good chance Bush himself had nothing to do with planning or implementation of the operation other than to be told “we are going to provide you with a pretext to act upon”, though I will highlight Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and any other PNAC members as main players.

The FDNY were not a part of the operation and neither was there any need for them to be. There are many firefighter statements exposing the operation, including mention of the relatively small isolated fires in WTC2 and explosions prior to collapse on multiple floors.



Again, ‘the courts’ is far too expansive a description – try ‘a few influential individuals within the FBI’ to bring about gag orders on the grounds of ‘national security’ instead.

There was absolutely no need for the NYPD, as with the FDNY, to be involved in the operation. Indeed the NYPD did a good job in detaining the Israeli agents reported for celebrating the WTC attacks but then handed the suspects over to the FBI (remember those few influential individuals above).

Why would the Port Authority have anything to do with the operation? They are one of the worst hit areas, having to subsidise through liberty bonds rebuilding work that Silverstein should by rights be paying for, ie $475million in the case of WTC7 alone.



Though it would hardly need a truck to bring in the minimal recognisable debris found at the Pentagon site, I am inclined to believe an aircraft did impact the Pentagon so no employees of the building would be required to cover-up.



This is getting more ridiculous as it goes on. Are you aware that without pressure from the victims’ families there would likely never have even been a 9/11 Commission formed at all. Bill Doyle, board member of the Coalition of 9/11 Families has stated his belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, and estimates this conclusion is shared by half of the families he represents.

Although Al Jazeera, European and even the US media have followed up on the conspiracy to some extent, the mainstream news is a political tool, owned by a limited number of individuals. An example of this is Rupert Murdoch who controls 175(!) newspapers plus TV news channels in each of the US, UK and also Asia. And do you think it is a coincidence that every one of those 175 newspapers editorialises in favour of the Iraq war?

I have yet to see pictures that ‘clearly’ show bowing of the perimeters to the naked eye (you have to trust NIST’s calculations to what degree it exists) and in any case this can be explained through a controlled demolition scenario. There are no photos that show the core columns intact after collapse either – the ‘spire’ seen in some photos is the external corner column of the Tower. So… no photographers were in on the operation.



See comments above for the political motivations of the mainstream media - Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst, another large media corporation with interests in 128 newspapers, nearly 200 magazines and 28 television stations which reach a combined 18% of all US viewers. This is not good for freedom of reporting. Also I should just add that Popular Mechanics ‘debunking’ is an attack on false arguments or ‘strawmen’ in any case.

The Nova documentary at the time supported a version of the ‘pancake’ collapse theory that has long since been debunked first by ‘conspiracists’ and eventually by NIST’s official investigation itself. Yes, the Nova scientists got the collapse process completely wrong but that does not mean they are in on the operation.

NIST were tasked with determining why and how the WTC Towers collapsed after the initial airliner impacts – despite having no physical evidence in support of their conclusion, exaggerating damage levels and halting their study at the point of collapse initiation, it could be said they supplied figures to loosely meet the said objective. Therefore, ‘everyone’ in NIST did not need to be involved in a cover-up; only individuals at the top level to set and guide the preconceived conclusion.



Sure, whoever ordered evidence from the crime scene to be destroyed was either in on the operation or influenced by an individual who was. Major Giuliani seemed to be co-ordinating much in the aftermath of the attacks and had a command bunker in WTC7 where many people believe the operation was planned, also giving motivation for that building’s destruction.

The clean-up crews and scrap yards were just doing their job – they were not in on the operation.



Wrong. There are in fact more independent construction professionals who have spoken out against the ‘official’ story than are in favour of it. Having papers containing controversial conclusions, eg “you are being lied to”, peer reviewed for professional journal publication is unrealistic in the current political climate and comes back to issues such as government grants and the mainstream media corporations talked about above.



Not ‘the CIA’ as a whole but individuals of branches within the CIA that infiltrated Al Qaeda and are reported to have met with Osama Bin Laden shortly before 9/11, certainly seem to have been involved in the operation. Let’s not forget that Al Qaeda was in part an invention of the CIA in the first place.

Again, ‘elements of the FBI’ including those who lived with two of the hijackers and allowed the detained Israeli agents’ releases after 9/11 would have been involved.

See comments for NIST above - FEMA, being a government agency, gave the findings expected of them to meet the preconceived conclusion set out with only the very top levels perhaps requiring knowledge of the operation. Incidentally, head of the agency on 9/11 was Joe Allbaugh who helped manage Bush’s election campaign.



See previous comments on NIST, FEMA and mainstream journals.



NORAD were not involved in the operation though it may have been necessary to compromise their ability, allowing the airliners to reach their targets. Individuals in a position to do this include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – all PNAC members.

Everybody (well 99.9%) agrees that the FAA were tracking aircraft on 9/11. Whether these were the airliners we are told is a matter of debate though either way the FAA were not required to be involved in the operation.



For sure, I think every ‘conspiracist’ has Larry Silverstein on their list.

After a dispute with the insurance companies where Silverstein attempted to claim double what he was due, he received $4.65billion which to date has not been reinvested in the WTC site. The insurance companies were not involved in the operation and would not contest the payout altogether as this would not only involve proving 9/11 was an inside job but that Silverstein had prior knowledge.



The airports and airlines themselves were not required to be involved in the operation though the same company that ran elements of security at the WTC also did so for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines. Former board member of this security agency: Marvin Bush.



Remotely controlled Boeing technology was developed by NASA in 1984. They were not a part of the 9/11 operation.

Yes, obviously individuals would need to be involved in acquiring and controlling the airliners – Israeli intelligence, perhaps in conjunction with US agencies, could be utilised here and why not? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose through 9/11.

See above regarding Israeli operatives, five of whom, as already mentioned, were detained in New York on 9/11 for celebrating the WTC attacks.

Yes, the head of Urban Moving Systems that the above Israelis were using as cover, fled back to Israeli shortly after 9/11 despite being wanted for questioning by the FBI. Any genuine staff who worked for the company were not required for the operation.



Anyone receiving phone calls were not in on the operation. The PSYOPS agents possibly involved may again have been part of Israeli intelligence.

What are you talking about? No ‘liberal activists’ were used in the operation.

Just because an individual cannot see through the false flag operation that was 9/11 does not mean they are involved.



A hundred thousand??? Well actually, we probably have it down to a few dozen individuals who are a part of or affiliated with the current US Administration and then a number of additional intelligence operatives, most of whom may be from a foreign agency or agencies.


How many people were involved in the Gleiwitz incident, unconfirmed for over 6 years, which Hitler used to launch WW2?

How many people were involved in Operation Gladio, unrevealed for over 40 years, consisting of clandestine stay-behind armies created by the CIA/NATO following WW2 and attributed with carrying out terrorist attacks in member states for political gain?

How many people were involved in Air America, an American airline covertly owned and operated by the CIA for over 25 years?

Operation Ajax? The Reichstag Fire? The Mukden Incident? In the planning and implementation, how many? According to you lot the numbers involved means that none of this ever happened… but it did.

So. What your saying is G.W. Bush and his group or merry morons were smart enough to plan and carry off the attack? Hold on let me get my tin foil hat. (puts on hat) Nope. I still don't see it. The man isn't smart enough to be President.

So what you are saying is that perhaps after Bush's band of merry morons decided that a “new Pearl Harbor” type event was needed, they just got incredibly lucky… [Q borrows Plainbob's tinfoil hat]… Nope. I still don't see it.

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Cracks me up at the number of people willing to admit George Bush is too dumb to be President, yet still defend everything.

If he's too dumb to be President, doesn't it make you wonder how and why he got nominated to become President in the first place?

It's pretty scary to think such a fool was surrounded by people that felt him worthy of running to begin with. Even scarier when you realize he won.....TWICE!

I'm not defending anything. Bush got the job cause daddy and his brither stole the election for him. What i find scary is that people want to blame the goverment for a attck they didn't even see comeing. What i find even scarier is there are people that underestimate a group of people that warp and twist the word of thier god. I love The Art of War. It's like a bible to me. And one of the main rules is to never underestimate your enemy. And to say that these people are not smart enough to plan and pull off this attack is a joke.

B U N K !

You don't know the truth or ICE disposition of those cases. Stop being so deliberatley misleading.

Why don't you find ONE defended legal thesis on this conspiracy of 9-11. Just one.

So you believe Bush Sr. and Jeb Bush stole the election for Bush Jr, yet you go around talking about tinfoil hats? Them stealing the election for him would be a conspiracy in itself. Don't you see how messed up that is to begin with?

Now, if they stole the election for him, what do you think the reason was for? Ya think maybe they had an agenda? Ya think maybe Bush Jr. planned all along to invade Iraq before 9/11 ever happened? Do you think just maybe 9/11 was ALLLOWED to occur because Bush Jr. and his clan of merry morons knew it would help them in gaining the support of Americans at the outset of this war which somehow became focused on Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein instead of being focused on getting Osama Bin Laden?

You say the government didn't see the attack coming when nothing could be further from the truth. They want you to think they had no idea something like that could occur. The truth is there was plenty of information available to them that something like this was being planned.

Not only did they know terrorists planned on hijacking the planes, but they also knew they planned on targeting the WTC with those hijacked planes, along with other targets. They purposely chose to be naive about what was going on and allowed the disaster to occur.

Man. It must be nice in your world. And yes i talk about tin foil hats, I sure your not only a customer but the president. What i find fuuny is that you people would plan the Us goverment for a attck by a group of middle eastern nut jobs. And no I don't think it was ALLOWED. No goverment would allow the deaths of a couple thousand people. And for you to sit there and say the stuff you do is a insult to the people that died on 9/11. Bush is a moron and a perfect example of whats wrong with the US electorial system. Ya need to check that tin foil hat for rips. Maybe your tin foil wallpaper isn't working well enough for you. Get some help man seriously. You people are to strange for me on this thread.

I live in the same world you live in and to be honest, I'd rather not believe the government does, and has done certain things to hurt their own people and cover up their own criminal activities, but the fact is they have and still do. You are naive if you think otherwise.

You made the claim that the election was rigged, yet you want to then laugh at others for their thoughts. Don't you realize how f'cked up it is to say to yourself, "Meh, the election for who became President of the United States was rigged, but it's no big deal". Gee, what else are you willing to look past?

You probably honestly believe the government had no clue terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and flying them into buildings too, don't ya?

If you don't think governments have allowed for the deaths of their own people, then you are sadly mistaken. It happens. It's been done. History has shown and taught us this.

And lastly, please don't tell me how my thoughts on what went down on 9/11 is disrespectful to those that died. That's such a load of B.S.

Well, that was as predictable an answer as I could've envisioned.
Only select individuals in the administration would need to be in the know. God...

And the President himself wouldn't know?!

I can just see the conversation.

The Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense are sitting in the Oval Office, and they say,
"Mr President, we're gonna give you a pretext to attack Hussein. We'll work something out."

And the President says, "Oh, well geez, that'd be great. Cool!"

End of conversation.



Then, after the attacks of September 11, the President calls the Vice President from Air Force One and says, "Dang Dick, that was a hell of a great deal. That'll do it...now we git to go in there and nail that sucker! Thanks!"

Or perhaps he never realized that THAT was the pretext, and he never actually asked about it???
Maybe he still doesn't know to this day that treason was committed by his staff, and that he's complicit in the most heinous crime committed against Americans by association????



Christ.

Cabinet level officials tell the President of the United States that they're going to create a pretext for war with Hussein, and the President doesn't say,


"Pretext?! Pretext??? What is it, and before you tell me, how quickly can you clear out your desks and go find another job?"

We've got the evidence of the eyewitness Bartmer that there were no explosive sounds immediately before WTC7 collapsed, so how could there have been any high explosive charges, linear, shaped, or otherwise?

Who's acting dumb? The important point is the delay of several seconds between high-up charges and low ones. Show me a single CD with this feature.

Don't try to tell me how an engineering team works, I am an engineer. If you get your name on a report, you made a technical contribution, and most engineers take an interest in the final product, not just their own part.
That apart, you do not bring in high-level people from academia or outside institutions to make the tea.

If they had done it that way, they wouldn't have run the case with the less severe conditions.

If any of our readers are sufficiently interested to read the long thread, they will find that I gave a detailed technical explanation of why NIST didn't need to run an intermediate case, centering on the fact that the the extra damage above the baseline case needed to initiate the collapse was the same extra damage needed for the simulation to match the observed bowing of the walls. As the bowing was observed, the damage must have been enough to initiate the collapse.

So any structural engineer that actually studies the collapses is automatically to be distrusted? Who would you trust then?

On the other thread, you accused members of the FDNY of being CIA agents there to help the conspiracy.

See the above post.

You've yet to establish this. I see very few structural engineers on your list, and no evidence that the members of the list are checked to see if they have the qualifications they claim.

Yes, though I do not define ‘the FDNY’ as perhaps a couple of individual infiltrators assigned to WTC7.



Then provide your list of independent construction professionals who support the official fairytale and prove me wrong. No? I didn’t think so.

I’m sure I have said this umpteen times before without it sinking in, but… perhaps the demolitions were initiated through thermite charges; negating the need for a series of explosions immediately prior to the collapses. That's how I would carry out a covert controlled demolition anyway.



The point at hand was that you said initial damage to the structure at roof level could disrupt a controlled demolition setup at ground or basement level. Now you accept that is a false assumption you have decided a different point is now most important.

I could swear I have said this umpteen times before without it registering, but… the two differences between the covert controlled demolitions and a conventional method, were the type and timing of charges used. That said, the JL Hudson Department Store implosion clearly shows high level charges approximately 5 seconds before the building collapses.



You completely missed the point that it is the level and area of contribution that is important. I’m not arguing this point when it is clear as day there were only two individuals ultimately responsible for the narrative of NCSTAR1-6.



A “detailed technical explanation” – sorry but that’s a joke. You still can’t even grasp that to assume it was the impacts and fire that caused bowing is a preconception – the controlled demolition process could itself have caused the bowing. All you did is confirm that the actual damage situation on 9/11 was intermediate to the base and severe case. That the overstated case NIST use initiates collapse is no proof that the intermediate reality on 9/11 should have done so.



Where did I say that any engineer who studies the collapses is to be distrusted? For me, it is not even principally a case of ‘trust’ in the studies, but the basis that engineers like Gordon Ross and Tony Szamboti provide more comprehensive and supported work than the likes of Gilsanz and his half-theory.

Yes, completely predictable because I stated what is the obvious. God… what? It’s not difficult – those members with long-held neoconservative views would consider 9/11 greatly beneficial – cui bono?



It is possible GW Bush was not involved in the planning and implementation of the 9/11 false flag operation; this does not rule out his foreknowledge and acceptance of creating a pretext for a ‘War on Terror’.



No, as you demonstrate, some people are far too dramatic and do not have the forethought to ‘see the conversation’ in context: -

1. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank with the stated goal “to promote American global leadership”.
   
   
2. A PNAC document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, “proceeds from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the pre-eminence of U.S. military forces.” And further, the required, “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.”
   
   
3. Members of PNAC including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad and a dozen others took up prominent positions within the US administration in 2001.
   
   
4. Knowing the above, it is nigh on guaranteed and entirely unremarkable that these PNAC members and GW Bush spoke together of the desired “American global leadership” and the “new Pearl Harbor” type event required in furthering this aim.
   
   
5. The immediate cause of WW2 was a false flag project known as Operation Himmler. Prior to this, Hitler had told his generals he would provide them with a “propagandistic causus belli” to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used to justify the invasion of Poland.
   
   
6. Now, providing GW Bush was convinced by those mentioned PNAC individuals appointed within his administration, consider him in the role of a general from the above scenario.

To truly comprehend the above scenario and motivations involved, it is entirely necessary to give consideration to the interests of the nation, rather than that of the individual.

Do commercial CD operations routinely use thermite for their operations? Has anyone discussed this thermite theory with a reputable CD company?

And how would the intricate wiring of the charges (thermite and HE) survive the chaotic situation involving a high speed, heavy airliner impact in the very vicinity where the charges needed to be placed?

You're talking about the total amount of charges required for the entire CD. A small amount of charges would be placed in various spots throughout the building. Read the following, where an expert states that it only requires small amount of charges to CD a building....

Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, retired). As one of the world's foremost experts in both the theoretical and practical applications of explosives technology, General Partin possesses virtually unparalleled qualifications to authoritatively evaluate the public-source information available on the bombing.

The entire building in Oklahoma City could have been collapsed with relatively small demolition charges against the base of the columns and with even less explosives if linear cavity cutting charges had been used," General Partin wrote in his letter to Senator Nickles. Partin's point was dramatically illustrated with the final demolition of the Murrah Building on May 23, 1995. As that event demonstrated, a very small amount of explosives is required to bring down a large building - if the demolition charges are strategically placed within, or in direct contact with, the key structural points of the building. A spokesman for Control Demolition, Inc. informed THE NEW AMERICAN that less than 150 pounds of explosives placed in 420 locations were used to fell the three- fourths of the building left standing after the April 19th explosion.

http://www.generalpartin.org/redflags.htm




You're referring to "the towers", not WTC 7. And there would be plenty of time to prep the building for a CD before 9/11, with no fear of the charges being discovered beforehand.



First of all, they still haven't released any technical information on the east penthouse, over six years later! That is totally ridiculous, and more than a little suspicious.
This information is too sensitive to release - quite possibly because it would lend support to the CD argument.

This information may reveal the specific reason(s) why it had to be demolished separately, before the main CD. As I said, it's already known that it was a heavily reinforced structural addition. The point is that there are certainly reasons for doing the CD separately, which cannot be ruled out.

It wasn't a petty quibble. You repeatedly said he questioned the existeince of the fireball itself. What else should we have thought, especially since you're the one trying to argue about someone's inconsistent statements? Anyway, I'm glad you realize the mistake you made, so we can move on...



That's your take on it, which is fine. I see it differently, as being the account of the burned man. But your opinion doesn't make it a fact, and you can't treat it as if it's a fact, just so you can argue that he changed his story later on. You're interpreting it to fit your argument, and that tactic is simply unacceptable.



Irrelevant. Your argument is that his story has changed. It has nothing to do with his opinion on what other people think happened.



He did mention it in several interviews with the media during this time, which is the relevant point. It's known that many witnessess felt intimidated during their testimonies, so he may have been reluctant to mention bombs to government officials as well. Obviously, if you think you're talking to people capable of mass murder, you'll think twice before you implicate them right to their face!



Same as before - I think Roberts is full of crap.



So what? Most people thought al Qaeda did it at first - after all, the government and media started bleating and carping non-stop about how al Qaeda did the whole thing, just a few hours after it happened!! We were all in shock, and it took some time to calm down and take stock of what had really happened.



Again - so what? Most people, at first, naturally assumed their own government wouldn't murder - or be complicit in the murder - of its own citizens! After some time, it became clearer and clearer that this was not the case. The way the government conducted the investigation - ie: not including family members - only helped confirm that belief.

Roberts' (and your) accusations against Rodriguez are pure garbage.

The list in NCSTAR1 was a start, I didn't bother to count them, but I'm sure they outnumber the structural engineers in AE911Truth by a big margin.

In which case you were being dishonest in implying that turbonium's "charges under the fireproofing" theory had any merit. If you can hide charges in that way, then it rules out the sort of thermite charges which you've proposed.

You were the one who said ground or basement level, not me. I asked turbonium for a reason why a CD should involve rooftop demolition several seconds before the rest of the building, and I'm still waiting.

Which boils down to the unfalsifiable "it's a CD if it looks like a CD and it's also a CD if it doesn't look like a CD"

They drop one side of the building before the other, but that's a horizontal separation, not a vertical one.
Incidentally, that building was much smaller than the WTC, but look what it took to bring it down:
CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20030225133807
Now how is anyone going to put that lot into a building without anyone noticing?

They were the co-leaders of that section of the report, but it doesn't mean they did all the work without any help. The list of supporting people in NCSTAR1 applies to the whole report.

I gave my reasons for believing just that on the other thread. I know you have difficulty with engineering concepts, but do try to understand:
The analysis started from the impact and, for the severe case, predicted the bowing and the collapse. There was no need to involve any other cause, because the laws of physics incorporated in the simulation codes showed that the impact was cause enough. The bowing was an observed phenomenon that ver