I suggest you read my post again, catspaw. Either that or stop deliberately distorting my words. I draw your attention to this from my last post...

It's clear that Jones has not proven anything as of this point in time.


But you go ahead and show me where they say they've disproved all of his points. In the meantime, I'll show you where they said that further study is needed. On the subject of the possibility that exotic accelerants were used...

We have come across no evidence to support this claim. (They do not say that such evidence couldn't possibly exist, and it is quite reasonable for them to not have seen any evidence since the government has not conducted any tests for exotic accelerants on the materials in its possession. They only say that the claim has not been proven. They do not say that it has been disproven.)

We do not know the answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion continues to be pursued.


Here, they say that they don't know how building 7 fell. They only say that the possibility that the government version is correct has not been ruled out. They do not say that all other possibilities have been ruled out. The possibility that it could happen in a particular way is not proof that it did, and it doesn't rule out the possibility of other ways it could have happened. It also doesn't tell us which, of the possible ways it could have happened, is the one that did happen...

We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.

On the subject of the jets of air that people like Jones are suggesting are squibs, they say that the floors were pancaking inside of the outer shell in a way that's not immediately visible from the outside, and they are saying that this is why what they are calling jets of air and debris could be seen coming out of windows several floors below where the damage could be seen in videos and photographs. But earlier they tried to support their contention that there could not have been any explosive events in the basement or bottom floors because we can't see any damage to the outside of the building in videos or photographs. They're trying to have it both ways on that one.

Really, catspaw, If I presented a paper with holes in it as big as the ones in that one as proof that the buildings had been brought down with a controlled demolition, you wouldn't accept it for a nanosecond. The paper proves nothing. It only shows that Jones has not proven anything, either. But, like Bill, you are also going on faith and belief, and not on logic or science, so I don't see any reason to be surprised that you are so quick to see proof where it does not exist. How does the rain sound when it hits that tin foil hat of yours?