Creative Speculation

> Have you done a study of seismic readings associated with controlled demolitions?

Companies that do controlled demolitions certainly have, mainly for insurance purposes, and according to one such company, Protec:

At one point, "truther" sites tried to claim that seismic spikes recorded at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, proved controlled demolition of the towers, but the University's expert disagreed:



> The FEMA BPAT team was excluded from the site except for a "guided tour", as any honest researcher knows. The "independent" ASCE engineers soon found their investigation hijacked by FEMA, so the investigation was no longer independent. Do you get you get your talking points from anonymous propaganda websites?

How ironic and hypocritical, considering that once again you are uncritically parroting bullshit that you read on "truther" sites. Here's what honest researchers know:







Now your turn, Mr. Honest Researcher: Please point me to a single member of that team who "found their investigation hijacked by FEMA."

> It is natural to infer motivation from outcomes. Cui bono and all that. Why did the defendant shoot the decedent? Because he wanted him dead.

But it is certainly not natural, legal, nor logical to claim that as evidence of anything, since any number of people might have benefited from that shooting. I do hope that "truthers" who think that cui bono is a form of evidence will do society a favor by admitting that when they are called for jury duty, since they are manifestly unfit for the task.

> Where do you get the ideas that no clues were found? Dr. Astaneh-Asl found clues.

Which just goes to show that even after you were soundly trounced in your debate about that with AtheistCrusader, not only did you keep posting the same refuted bullshit over and over and over, here you are trying to get away with shoveling it again. Anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.

> The WPI team found clues. NIST shutting down half their investigation suggests they found clues they did not want to explain.

The first claim is bullshit and the second is just more faulty logic. NIST did not analyze what happened after collapse initiation in the towers because they judged it unnecessary to accomplish their objectives. Regardless of your opinion about that decision, I pointed you to a long list of technical papers by people who are well qualified to do that sort of analysis, but you disingenuously try to score debating points by claiming that since NIST didn't include the analysis of acknowledged experts such as Bazant in their report, such analysis should be ignored. And yet whenever there is anything in the NIST report that interferes with your conspiracy delusions, you just accuse them of dishonesty -- for absolutely no apparent reason other than it interferes with your conspiracy delusions. Anyone who still takes you seriously hasn't been paying attention.

> The behavior of the buildings is evidence of controlled demolitions. Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers came down, because they understand about redundancy and safety factors and all that.

And yet we're still waiting for Gage's "2000 plus architects and engineers" to produce their first technical argument that can withstand expert scrutiny. No, the actual behavior of the buildings is certainly not evidence of controlled demolition, which is precisely why Gage & Co simply ignore anything that doesn't fit, such as the very stuff we're now discussing: no high-explosive sounds, no seismic evidence, and no columns and beams cut with explosives

> Yes, what's complicated about rigging three buildings for demolition? Dr. Romero said a few charges could do the job. FEMA said a few failing truss anchors could do the job. NIST said ONE failing girder seat could bring the whole building down.

I notice that you frequently try to have things both ways. The crux of "truther" claims about controlled demolitions is that it's impossible for complete destruction to follow from local failures as NIST theorizes, so controlled demolition must have been the cause, regardless of how implausible it is that anyone would or could pull off such a thing. If you acknowledge that the buildings could have fallen because of progressive failure, however, then the principle of parsimony says we don't need controlled demolition theories to explain it, so they should not be accepted unless you can provide convincing positive evidence. Instead, we have a very conspicuous lack of evidence that really ought to be there if those theories had any validity.

> What makes you think nothing went wrong? Lots of things went wrong--you can see them if you're only willing to look. What that is safe and simple could have caused the American people to give up their rights without a peep, to become torturers and murderers and occupiers of far-off lands?

If that first claim were true, the perps would have already been executed and "truthers" would no longer be ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists." I already answered your question about safe and simple plots, and yet once again, all you've got is denial.