[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Deke4life
For those who are not aware, "pull it" is a term for controlled demolition. All over that same video, "pull" it used to mean the exact same thing(just ask and demolition expert). The problem arises that it takes weeks if not months for experts to precisely create the mechanisms for a demolition to take place - nothing taken out of context here.

This actually makes your hypothesis FAR LESS PROBABLE than the one offered by Grimmer.

Originally posted by Deke4life
Also Dan Rather said live on air for all to hear that the building was taken out deliberately by well placed explosives. - nothing out of context here - just what he was observing.

Dan Rather, for many, lacks even basic credibility as a JOURNALIST - his opinions on demolition are useless, baseless, and contribute nothing to your theory.

Originally posted by Deke4life
And no wonder he said this - because no other building in the history of the world has ever fallen in the manner that seven fell except by well placed expllosives. -

Strawman. No hijacked planes had been used as weapons until earlier that day.

Originally posted by Deke4life
A steel building has never fallen in that manner due to fire:

FACT: steel's tensile strength is reduced greatly by extreme heat (1200+ degrees F).

FACT: seven hours of 1800+ degree heat had taken place inside the building.

FACT: concussive impact from debris had removed part of the building's face, including load-bearing supports.

It is not absurd to extrapolate that these three facts would have eliminated the ability of the building to support itself. These don't even rely on the "diesel in the basement" hypothesis, either - which you conveniently ignore.

AGAIN - the burden is on YOU to disprove these concepts, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Deke4life
That is what is important about the well documented work of physics911, not someone's libertarian ideology

And then we have the classic crimp pattern as the building falls, which is what any demolition expert will tell you is part of a controled demolition.

I request a citation on this - first from an independant demolitions expert, then photos showing the crimp, then testimony from a demolitions expert saying that, categorically, this pattern could not come from anything other than controlled demolition.

It appears at least some experts disagree with you- they're cited in the PM paper.

Originally posted by Deke4life
and watching any of the films of the colapse, the fires were obviously minimal - many other steel buildings have burned for weeks totally engulfed in flames and they were fine

It is totally inappropriate to claim something is "obviously minimal" using post hoc analysis of film - you're quickly falling off the logic cliff here, and this does nothing to support your hypothesis.

also - cites? and don't lay the "read the site!!!" gag on me - find an independent citation for things you reference as 'facts'

Originally posted by Deke4life
And then the building falls at the rate of free fall in a perfectly semetrical pattern - again ask any engineer about this one

while at the same time the buildings owners says he told firefighters to pull the building and even Dan Rather agreed when he said that the building was "deliberately destroyed" - you really dont get any more obvious than that

Um . . . both towers fell in 'perfectly symmetrical' manners, IIRC - but you won't extend this hypothesis to them, right?

Also - the Rather bit is tiring, but I'll say it one more time: he is not an expert in what he was speaking of, and he has a long history of using figurative language and overstepping his knowledge in situations. He resigned for similar overstepping. The credibility here is nil.

Originally posted by Deke4life
No steel building In The History Of The World has Ever been taken out this way (excpet by explosives) - an obvious controlled demolition and one that would take weeks to plan

I can't even begin on this line - but please, address the concerns above, and we can start to address why your thesis here is not a synthesis of your previous points.

Let's deal with this in a logical fashion, no?