sorry dude, its not worth debating with someone who doesnt know the facts and attacks 'theories' by adding a lie to it.
"No physical evidence of explosives has ever been found."
This statement clearly implies youre either totally ignorant and have never heard the complete story or youre on an aggressive disinfo mission.
Either way, good bye.

"Just because a building falls and "looks like" explosive demolition is not evidence."

I wonder what qualifies as evidence. The video of that punk throwing a brick at the unassuming truck driver in downtown LA only "looks like" an assault. I think he must have been trying to swat a fly...yes, a big, dangerous fly, but a fly none the less.

Please change your statement to something a bit more reasonable. Here, I can do it for you:

"Just because a building falls and "looks like" explosive demolition is not PROOF."

evidence != proof != evidence....get it?, good.

"Controlled Demolition Expert Says WTC7 is Controlled Demolition
http://911blogger.com/node/3231"

Well, this is truly progress. We now have an anonymous 9/11 denier who ADMITS that WTC 1 and 2 could NOT have been blown up with explosives!

Our "guy" has revealed his dependence on the testimony of foremost Dutch demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, who quite explicity ruled out demolition of WTC 1 and 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

Now, all you 9/11 "Truthers", how are you all going to reconcile this amazing turn of events with your assertions that 9/11 was an inside job

The world is waiting for your answer with baited breath!

If you had bothered reading something other than 9/11 conspiracy comic books, you'd have long since known that there are multiple possibilities for the existence of thermite or thermate.

You might even have the capacity to find the papers on these on the internet all by yourself.

You'd also know that Steven Jones has not bothered to change any of his paper where he has been thoroughly debunked. You'd also like to know that Jones has descended into the abyss of claiming there were other chemcials as componenst of thermite and thermate to support his claim, but that these chemicals are also components of computer cases of which there were thousands in the tower.

In sum, you believe only what you want to believe, not what the evidence REALLY is. Such is the nature of 9/11 denial.

About those members of the 9/11 Denial Movement.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

This time Jon resorts to the Appeal to Pity.

Jon Gold's evasions are well known

This disinfo stuff is so dumb. All you have to do is look at the video's. Historically, there's only one way buildings have fallen into their own footprints, you shill's will get me to believe you when you can cite some historical evidence that matches up with your theory....you can't. You keep asking for evidence, how about providing some evidence yourself! CD has all sorts of historical refercences to compare to the videos of the collapses of the towers, what historical evidence can you cite that matches up with your version of the collapses? Your own "Conspiracy theory" is the one that is lacking in evidence and isn't supported by the physical laws of motion. Buildings do not behave in this manner without assistance, please use your common sense.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

Data is on page six. Explain please. There is a serious problem with the seismic record...do you see it?

P.S. Why the hell did American tax-paying citizens pay millions of dollars for a complete and thorough investigation of 9/11 if you claim there is no "official government explanation". You are seriously deranged.

First as Retrograde pointed out, evidence does not equal proof. Proof is decided in a court of law by a jury, while evidence is presented to a jury in order to convince them of the existence of proof (either innocent or guilty). Thus at best what anyone can present is at best evidence. Now, the evidence that WTC7 was not in significant probability a collapse due to fire and damage can be derived from multiple lines of inquiry:

a) Videographic Evidence
- The time from the roofline's initial acceleration to complete collapse is at most 6.6 seconds, according to various estimations made from the videos. The penthouse falls on the east side of the building followed 2 seconds later by the entire building. The building does not fall over, topple, or display any assymetry that would be expected from assymetrical damage, followed by assymetrical fire heating, and laterally progressive collapse. Indeed, even the initial FEMA report admits this and labels the building's collapse behaviour as an "implosion", with little damage to the surrounding structures. The video evidence also shows large production of dust from the base and perhaps some concrete streamers from the front and side of the building.

b) Seismic Evidence
Seismic readings show that the collapse is much longer (47 seconds according to FEMA report) but FEMA offered no explanation of these readings and merely presented the times without analysis (see Chapter 5). It is doubtful that a progression of minor, internal failure of the transfer trusses would register as an observable seismic event, but this is at best speculation. NIST of course has yet to produce its report and thus we are merely left with no official explanation as of yet for these readings.

c) Eyewitness Testimony
Many eyewitnesses reported sounds of explosions both before and during WTC7's collapse. I would recommend the comment posted by Anonymous above (titled "Controlled Demolition Expert") for an excellent run down of this info. The Demolition World paper briefly mentions these but then explains that other demo experts were in the vinicinty of WTC7 and did not hear anything abnormal. However, the paper fails to identify these "experts" and thus this testimony can not be further investigated.

d) Hotspots
Thermal imaging done in the weeks after 9/11 show incredibly hot temperatures at ground zero in both towers and WTC7. This intense heat is corroborated by multiple testimonies by cleanup workers and other people who were directly onsite, including Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction. Some have attempted to minimize this heat data by first denying its existence and then trying to explain the heat through normal fire progression(911myths.com). However the testimony is varied and specific as to the amount of heat under the piles and even photographic evidence is clear on this. Thermal imaging measures surface temperatures (contrary to 911myths.com attempt to obfuscate this matter) as the sensors measure the visible infrared light given off by "surface matter", i.e. they cannot see through matter. Thus the thermal images give a lower bound on the maximum temperatures and these show then that temperatures were in excess of 800C.

e) Destruction of Evidence
The steel from WTC7 was lumped in with WTC1 and 2 and removed as quickly as possible, even though no one was thought to be trapped in the rubble. Proponents of the official theory have always questioned this and claim that to the contrary there was ample time for inspection of the steel by the initial FEMA BPAT team. However, the fruits of the official investigation would suggest otherwise. Firstly, only 236 steel samples were saved so that they could later be analysed by NIST. Of these samples, only 2% showed signs of heating to 250C as evidenced by a paint deformation test. The paint test could only be performed on samples having enough paint, so NIST also tested the metallic structure of the samples, which allowed one to see if the piece reached 600C (however the test is one sided so that the temperature could be anywhere in the range of 21 - 600C). Of all the samples, none had reached the half strength of 600C. Thus it would appear that the fires were not hot enough as NIST claims and their hypothetical computer models are in error. While NIST initially stated the metalurgical tests would show what temperatures the steel structure of the buildings saw, they backtracked as soon as the results were in and stated that the pieces did not come from areas predicated to have high heating. Supporters of the official story also decry that "only" 236 samples were saved and thus the sample is too small to generalize the result. Unfortunately, NIST also mentioned that the pieces were explicitly chosen because they showed signs of fire damage. Thus we can be sure that these pieces are in fact the ones with highest heating that were available to the offical investigations. Thus, we arrive at a conundrum. Either:

1) The initial metallurgical teams were given enough time and access to the steel but were incompetent in selecting the right pieces, in which case grave doubt is cast on the validity of the investigations

2) The initial metallurgical teams were given enough time and access to the steel and were competent in selecting the right pieces, in which case the steel samples are representative and thus the fire temperatures were too low, casting grave doubt on the validity of the investigations

3) The initial metallurgical teams were not given enough time and access to the steel and were competent in selecting the right pieces in the time they had, in which case the evidence was destroyed rapidly and grave doubt is cast on the validity of the official investigations

4) The initial metallurgical teams were not given enough time and access to the steel and were incompetent in selecting the right pieces in the time they had, in which case the evidence was destroyed rapidly and VERY grave doubt is cast on the validity of the official investigations

In other words, grave doubt is cast on the investigations regardless of the rapid destruction of steel or not.

f) The Evaporation and Sulfidation of Steel
In spite of the previous issue with the steel handling, one particulary important piece of analysis was performed by the inital FEMA investigation. Pieces of steel were found in WTC7 (and the towers) that were partly evaporated (2000C +). A high temperature eutectic had formed within the steel by sulfur attack and had turned the girder into "swiss cheese". This magnituide of heat cannot be explained by any open air fire theory or gravity driven collapse. Claiming that the steel saw these temperatures in the pile is ridiculous since even in a perfect burn there is simply not enough heat energy to melt or evaporate steel. High pressure, pre heating, and enclosed furnaces are neccesary to achieve this. The FEMA report cautions that no clear source for this event can be determined and that further, detailed investigation is fully warranted. NIST, however, elected to ignore this data, most likely under the absurb rubric of "The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." (NIST FAQ, Aug 2006) For NIST to conclude this, however, it must first examine the evidence to determine if it is conclusive.

g) FEMA Can't Explain WTC7
FEMA themselves admit that they cannot really explain how the building collapsed and that their theory only has a low probability of occurence. Their theory requires that:

1) WTC1 collapses and debris rains down on WTC7
2) Debris penetrates WTC7's exterior facade, continues on and penetrates a dividing concrete wall, and then proceeds to penetrate a protected diesel fuel line and sever it
3) The fuel pump was online and pumping at the time
4) The sensor, which would normally detect the leak somehow malfunctions
5) A fire gets started and ignites the fuel
6) The diesel fuel somehow migrates to the east section of the building (which requires that the doors to this area be left open) and starts heavy heating on this main truss support
7) The heating is so great that the truss fails, causing the east penthouse to fall
8) That this local collapse somehow progresses to complete lateral failure of the transfer truss simultaneously in order to cause "implosion"

Supporters of the official theory claim the building was unusual and that the loads on the trusses were very high. This is true, as the building was designed to straddle to Con-Ed station. However, as a result of this, like any well engineered structure the design capacity of the structure was also increased to match this greater loading. Instead of hollow box columns, solid steel beams were used and the structure was a latticework of support. This makes high temperatures of the beams even harder to achieve, and the prescence of fireproofing would retard this even further (no doubt NIST are hard at work trying to blow off all the fireproofing, similiar to their treatment of fireproofing in WTC1 & 2 where even in areas where their own impact models showed fully intact fireproofing, they removed it because they couldn't even achieve their pitiful 1/9 success rate without it! - see NIST 1-6D pg 38) Thus, as FEMA properly states, their theory has a low probability of occurence and other, more probable theories (demolition) should be methodically pursued.

Which brings us to

h) Explosives Residue Not Tested For and NIST's Foregone Investigation

NIST has finally been forced to admit, contrary to their own fire investigation standards (NFPA 921) which states that "unusual residues... could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials" (Section 12-4) and that they indeed did NOT bother to test for explosives or thermite residue on the steel. So in addition to ignoring the extreme temperatures and state of the metal in the piles, NIST also blatantly ignores even the possibility of arson. Note that NIST did not even check for residue, which certainly runs counter to providing an accurate account of why and how the buildings fell. NIST might as well have forgone metallurical and physical experiments and concentrated solely on concoting better computer models, which contrary to many official supporters, do NOT predict bowed columns and do NOT predict collapse. Read the report (section 1-6D pg 40) where they can't get pull in with the results of their computer floor tests and instead substitute direct point forces on the exterior walls to match results. Thus instead of using a stationary process to predict bowing from an inital condition, they turned the model around and used bowed columns to predict high floor forces without any computational or physical evidence to back it up.

I could go on but my fingers are getting tired :). The common theme of all this is that the validity of the official investigations is thrown into doubt. Either they didn't have the resources (streel, time, money), competence, political freedom to conduct an independent investigation, or worse. The demolition hypothesis has yet to be ruled out (except by bare assertion) by the official reports who do not investigate the most imporant observations and downplay any evidence to the contrary of their stated hypothesis. While it would be great if independent investigators could get access to the samples and perform proper metallugical tests, it is doubtful. NIST has shown no willingness to debate their report, even with those whom they refer to a flat earth fools. We shall see what they say about WTC7, but it is likely that this one will also be filled with the same deceptive methods and pervasive handwaving that featured promenently in their towers report.