When I broached the subject of the September 11 Truth movement on the Forum "Winning the War in Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#45868 I seemed to have touched a few raw nerves.

One poster dismissed me as a conspiracy nut. Another wrote:

"Its not about my tone but the horrific premise you are giving legitimacy to
You have to consider what it means when your views have not a shred of
credence, decency and humanity, and where it places you - it does not get
lower. Grow up and face reality - start by fasting and begging forgiveness
from the souls perished and their families for your atrocity."

What this poster overlooked is that it is many friends and relatives of those who perished in the terrorist attack who are behind the 9/11 truth movement.

I will include part of my post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#45928

"It pretty soon became obvious that the 9/11 attacks succeeded
to the extent that they did because the Bush administration was,
at least, grossly negligent.

"Others have since arrived at the conclusion that there exists a
prima facie case that the attacks were an inside job.

"I would honestly feel a lot better if someone could satisfy me
that that were not the case. As poorly as I have regarded the U.S.
Government I had not been prepared, until about a year ago, to
contemplate the possibility that they were prepared to commit such
a monstrous crime against their own people.

"So, if you can find me a resource on the web that comprehensively
demolishes the case of the 9/11 truth movement, I would be most
interested.

"I would be most interested to know if there are any plausible
theories which explain how the third building, which was not even
hit by the terrorist attack, managed to collapse completely in a
matter of hours - surely one of the greatest failings of modern
engineering history?

So, I am in the opinions of others, including whether if, indeed, any discussion at all on this topic is appropriate. Some resources include http://911truth.org http://911debunkers.blogspot.com

You seem to be a tad obsessive lately, James. However, this 9/11 conspiracy crap is completely off the wall, even for you.

very simple

you read Others Unknown the Oklahoma bombing case and Conspiracy, but get first edition, because they then even bought Jones off so he removed his mentions of bin Laden

this was the warm up for 9/11 where they experimented in taking out columns, but it didnt work so they went to planes

Yeah, snore. Heard this endlessly for the last 6 years.

Isn't it fascinating, this dogmatic outright rejection of the very right of questioning whether, in relation to events of the like of the '9/11' terrorism, everything is necessarily as it seems.

Is it because of the sheer scale of the act that people reflexivly reject even the possibility of its having been deliberately brought about by interests other than, or additional to, the one to which it has been attributed?

Two questions:

Prior to '9/11', is there anything to indicate the recognition, within or near to the US executive government, of a perceived need for the US to have secured a source of crude oil of the order of size of that available in Iraq?

In the absence of '9/11', do you think it conceivable that the US would, or could (in relation to the securing of the approval of Congress) have undertaken the war in Iraq?

If the answer to the first is a convincing 'yes', and to the second an equally convincing 'no', then there exists the environment for believability of motivation on the part of interests within, or capable of influencing, the US executive government toward the taking of such a course.

Which of course in no way amounts to proof of any such involvement.

Approach the dismissal of the right, or even propriety, of questioning an event of this nature under the categorization of such as amounting to 'conspiracy theory' from a different perspective. Consider how you would (or perhaps already have) regard the speculative history set out in this post ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725#120548 ) and following posts of mine in the thread. Seems to fit the now known apparent facts of history, does it not?

Consider how the thesis would have been received had it been put in 1942!

It seems to me that many persons who might otherwise be thought to be intellectually pretty sharp seem to need to take refuge in a dogma that large scale impropriety capable of influencing national policy, be it here or overseas, 'just can't happen'.

Think holocaust.

(This is a response to Paul.L's post on the thread "Winning the war in Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#46002)

Paul.L,

I listened to the radio debate (labeled "Were the World Trade Towers brought down by controlled demolition?" at http://noliesradio.org/), as did the presenter with an open mind (whether you accept that or not) and was convinced of the case put by Richard Gage representing 475 architects and engineers (http://ae911truth.org) who dispute the Bush administration's explanation of September 11 attacks (as opposed to the few dozen who have been prepared to publicly state that they accept that explanation).

I listened because I truly wanted to satisfy myself, one way or the other, as to whether the 9/11 Truth movement (http://911truth.org) had a case. Having done so I am convinced that they do. Prior to listening to that debate I had some respect for Michael Shermer the renowned supposed 'skeptic' who attempted to debunk Gage's case, but no longer do.

I don't ask people to take my word for it. I ask them to listen themselves. I think they will find that that is the quickest way to make to make sense of all the claims and counter-claims. If they have more time, then I urge them also to look at the other material both for and against the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement referred to by yourself and myself.

But Forrest, when the tapes were shown and the enquiries were made and the court cases were done, the holocaust was shown to have occurred, becuase there was a ton of evidence.

The enquiries have been made, the experts have given their opinions and verdicts, the computer model reconstructions have been done.....and the verdict is all the same: no conspiracy (except by the attackers themselves).

Unless of course you believe that all the 'independent' researchers and investigators are on the take as well. In which case, you are a nutbag and there is no use in even bothering to convince you of what reality is, you have decided that for yourself and no one will take that away from you

Can we please stop wasting time and energy on this crap?.

I dont think youre a conspiracy nut daggett.

We all tend to believe in the sinfulness of man.
People are always plotting against other people...in families, in offices.
Its the way of fallen man.
For conspiracies to have foundation there really needs to be proof though.
Someone has to come out and blab about such a surrepticious plan for it to be real.
For years I believed the CIA/US Defense etc assassinated John Kennedy to get rid of him or to get the US into Vietnam...but there was never any evidence.

A few years ago I saw a computer graphics re-enactment of the shooting and the author was correct when he calculated all angles. One man had done the shooting. There was no second shooter. I then became convinced that it was Oswald as was originally suspected.

What would it benefit US intelligence to be part of a conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers? Would they do it to start a war with Iraq to get at the oil? Its been proven that the US doesnt really want the oil and is slowly handing Iraq back to the Iraqis. Besides theres so much non-oil tech hidden away or being presently worked on to replace oil that soon oil may not be all that important...I believe it.

In the end God Judges all men.
"It is appointed for man to die but once and then the Judgment".
It all gets balanced out.
If we look at Mary K. Baxters divine revelation of hell...we see where the bad boys go.

CJ Morgan,

Could you please myself and other OLO users as to what you mean by the term "obsessive" and also how I might be able to avoid being labelled as such by you from now on?

Why it is obsessive for someone to raise issues on OLO of obvious relevance to the international political controversies of the day and to properly argue against those with contrary views? (Others may choose to look at daggett's recent contributions at OLO:

"Winning the war in Iraq" at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#45928
"Was the subversion of democracy in the 'free world' necessary to fight the 'evil' of 'communism'?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121&page=0
"Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896&page=0
"Australia exports its draconian immigration system" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7894
"1942, Australia’s greatest peril" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7859&page=0
... and form their own judgement.)

Having started this thread, I may not be able to personally participate further for a few more days.

I urge people to look at the evidence as cacofonix has urged. If anyone has an hour to spare, I believe that listening to the radio debate (labeled "Were the World Trade Towers brought down by controlled demolition?" at http://noliesradio.org/) would be well worth their time.

Other documents or web sites arguing for and against the 9/11 Truth Movement include:

Against:

http://www.debunking911.com/
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics at http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3
"How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism" at
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-04.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

For:

"Book Review: Debunking 9/11 Myths, by Popular Mechanics" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070402105006226
"Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050208093000680
http://ny911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

There should probably be another thread for my comments here, but Gibo, I look forward to our non dependence on oil. With the technology that has gone into making quick recharge, long lasting lightweight batteries, I wonder why we aren't seeing so many electric cars. The technology is now available to make and electric car that is capable of freeway speeds and long range, complete with passenger comforts such as CD player & air conditioning. I hope to be driving one of these in the not to distant future, and recharging this at home when I have solar panels. You're right about the technology that's there and being worked on Gibo, but what about the Oil Companies? Are they going to allow this to happen quickly?

Gibo,

The 9/11 Truth movement has shown that a lot of glaring holes in the government's case and have shown that a lot of evidence which contradict the government's case was not acknowledged by the first 9/11 commission.

I don't recall the precise amount but less that US$1 million was spent on the 9/11 Commission. In contrast US$40 million was spent investigating the Monica Lewinksy scandal.

If a commensurate amount were to be spent on a new commission then we would be able to learn the answers to many of these questions one way or the other.

There is something extremely suspicious about the attacks. And I think that is an understatement.

People who 'dismiss' it as a conspiracy seem to do so because they believe no conspiracies exist in the real world, when in fact they are common.. Adam Smith, for example talked about conspiracy against the public:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Now you substitute trades interests with global powers that want to survive at any cost and you have very wealthy, powerful and desperate incentive.

What procedures would you advocate for this new commission, daggett?

This is how they conducted their interviews for the first one:

"The Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands feet and mind went numb. They retied him in a chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep.

"When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. This torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he wasn’t even allowed to read. But then it continued when Majid was unable to identify certain streets and neighborhoods in Karachi that he did not know."

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx

Or do you see something a little more... persuasive?

Bugsy's post provides a perfect illustration of this seeming addiction to unqualified acceptance of the 'official line' on the part of many who participate in discussion of such events. A symptom of this addiction seems to be an accompanying need to launch into the labelling of any questioner of any 'official line' as being 'off the wall', 'obsessive', 'a nutbag', 'a waster of time and energy', and such like.

Let me make it quite clear that I have no firm view one way or the other as to whether there was another dimension to the 9/11 events beyond what we were all able to see from the television footage. I do not pretend to have even considered any evidence as to whether or not the building collapses were in any way assisted beyond the effects arising from the aircraft impacts. I have no need to believe any one scenario over another.

That is not what I think this thread is about.

It is obviously about the apparent prevalence of 'raw nerves' that seem to be so easily touched, not so much by the taking of a particular position pro or con a proposition, but by the very suggestion that there might even be an alternative view to the accepted or official one. I don't see daggett as promoting any 'conspiracy theory'. I do see him having reviewed some seemingly conflicting evidence or claims, and being prepared to keep an open mind. He has given links pro and con.

Contrast with the exercise, in relation to an event displaced in time by nearly 70 years from the present, that I suggested in my first post, Bugsy's response given before he could possibly have done as suggested. If he had read my first post in the instant of its posting, he had at most 21 minutes within which to read and digest the thread I suggested, then compile his own post. I have difficulty believing he read it at all.

Seems some posters feel threatened by evidence of the existence of an enquiring mind.

What's their problem?

The problem Forrest, is that when so much time and energy that has already been expended on topics such as this, and the conclusions soundly drawn from the real evidence, and they resurface all the time and never die because of some obscure flaw in human nature that has to keep rehashing the same crap and hope against hope that there's something else behind it.

This is by no means exclusive to the 9/11 attacks it applies to many other conspiracy theories and psedoscientific mumbo jumbo. Frustrating to say the least.

You can argue that any belief in things like Intelligent Design, homeopathy, CIA participation in the Kennedy assassination, US government complicity in the WTC & Pentagon attacks or whatever are all valid concerns/beliefs and have a right to respect. You can argue that. I beg to differ.

Bugsy wrote "...the conclusions have been soundly drawn from the real evidence, ..."

They have not, Bugsy.

We are told that the aircraft hit the Pentagon at ground level. As the engines hang lower than the body of the aircraft, then there should have been furrow marks on the lawn outside the Pentagon. Where are they? Where are all the parts of the plane which supposedly flew into the Penatagon? (They did recover all the Pan Am aircraft which was blown up over Lockerbie, didn't they?)

Within 5 minutes of the Penatagon being hit FBI agents were confiscating all video footage of the impact and none have since been released to the public.

Both the above facts were put by Gage but were not challenged by Shermer on the radio debate at http://noliesradio.org/

Also, If you consider that too much time has already been spent wasted discussing issues such as this, then why are you here?

Could you either engage with the facts or else go elsewhere?

Just to please you cacofonix, I will no longer waste my energy on it. I already did that years ago after the loose change video came out, I looked. I questioned. I'm done. Good luck with whatever it is you think you're achieving.

It's surely an intriguing question.

Some points.

1/ I hear a lot about 'Many of the hijackers were found alive in their own countries.

COMMENT But I've yet to see a live interview with any of them. If anyone knows of one.. please supply a reference.

2/ If those flying the planes were not those named, then.. who were they ? I've not seen any suggestion as to who, nor any evidence about a)Who
b)Their motive to die.. (economic reasons?)
Surely, if some were not the Arab Islamists, they must have been others who would have backgrounds which included some shred of evidence about what might have motivated them. I've heard nothing.

3/ All the mention of huge companies making huge profits from the war...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ixuf236Dk
Were in business before 9/11 and the reasons given for 9/11 were to justify an invasion of Iraq, the goal of which was 'control' of Iraq's oil, but Iraq seems to be in control of it's own oil.

4/ The Caspian basin is said to be the 2nd largest oil/gas reserves, and that the US needed an excuse to gain control of Afghanistan to ensure it could 'get' this.

But

On May 13, the BBC announced that: `Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project.

"India and Pakistan"...... how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?

Forrest I've appreciated your comments on this thread. My mind baulks at the idea that Bush and or others would knowingly do this to their own people and at the scale of the coverup required if it happened.

If nothing else an ongoing willingness to review the official line, to question the findings of official enquiries might keep those with a mind to a big scam on the back foot.

Smaller less structured deceipts have been gotten away with for a period of time, anybody remember "children overboard" and the claimed impact on a federal election.

R0bert

Polycarp,

I am not sure what you were intending to prove with points 1, 2 or 4.

Regarding your point 3, I would suggest that the thread "Winning the War In Iraq" is a more appropriate place to argue that. In fact, GrahamY has already put that argument and it has been responded to at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#42987

The biggest hole in the U.S. government's case would appear to be the spectacular sudden collapses of Towers 1 and 2 and 7. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (http://ae911truth.org) have shown that there in no plausible explanation for this other than controlled demolition A lot of eye-witness accounts back this up.

All the steel from Tower 7 was quickly carted away as scrap and put into blast furnaces before it could be examined. No explanation for the collapse of Tower 7 was proved in the 9/11 Comission report.

A very useful largely graphical presentation of this can be found at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html It is entitled The "World Trade Center Demolition - Exposing the fraud of the government's story"

BTW, have any of those unquestioning believers in the official U.S. Government version of 9/11 listened to the debate between Shermer and Gage at http://noliesradio.org ?

Ok, just one link then.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Now I'll leave you inquiring minds to it then.

Ae911truth responded to the NISTC report referred to by Bugsy in "Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report" at http://www.ae911truth.org/info/37

Here are some excerpts:

For the first time in history, normal office fires have created a total progressive collapse if the report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can be believed, said Richard Gage, AIA. Office fires can not melt steel, Gage claims, and NIST has neither explained the mystery of molten iron at the World Trade Center site nor considered other evidence that also suggests the use of thermate incendiary charges to cut the steel framework of 47-story Building 7.

NIST's vaguely worded presentation was "absurd on its face," contended Kevin Ryan, and differed completely from the story they had previously told Popular Mechanics. Though NIST claimed to hold scientific attitudes about alternative theories, they never responded to multiple invitations to discuss them, Ryan complained. NIST's disregard for chemical evidence of explosive nanothermate must be considered in the light of Ryan's findings that NIST has been studying these materials for almost ten years, and several of NIST's WTC investigators are experts in them.

NIST's only discussion of incendiaries was to dimiss them, observed Tony Szamboti, and they ignored tiny iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust by the USGS and by Dr. Steven Jones. These can only have been generated from molten metal, Szamboti argues. British fire resistance tests show steel framing to be far more enduring than NIST's collapse theories maintain, Szamboti adds, and while steel samples from the British Cardington test were preserved, the WTC steel was destroyed. We should ask "severe questions," Szamboti said.

...

... Many columns must be cut simultaneously to drop a building straight down, he pointed out. FEMA report 403, Appendix C, recommended further study of evidence of liquid steel that could be related to the cause of the collapse, Donly comented, but NIST ignores this information.

Gage asked that NIST release to independent researchers the thousands of photos and videos in its WTC archives.

Polycarp wrote:
"1/ I hear a lot about 'Many of the hijackers were found alive in their own countries.
"COMMENT But I've yet to see a live interview with any of them. If anyone knows of one.. please supply a reference."

To get a seat on an airline a photo ID is required. The passenger manifests of the four aircraft involved contained none of the names of the alleged hijackers. So what was the source of these names?

and:
"4/ The Caspian basin is said to be the 2nd largest oil/gas reserves, and that the US needed an excuse to gain control of Afghanistan to ensure it could 'get' this.
But
On May 13, the BBC announced that: `Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project.
"India and Pakistan"...... how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?"

The construction firm Halliburton which was to build the pipeline had reached an impasse in negotiations with the Taliban prior to 9/11. That impediment has now been removed.

So Symp....ur saying that it's all about Haliburton making a pipeline which will benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA ?

Kinda stretches the cred a tad you know. There are so many other factors to consider.

WTC 7.... can someone just mention the "concluslion" of that technical briefing?

It strikes me as most odd that such speculation surrounds this. I would think 2 building the size of WTC1 and 2 could easily undermind the foundations of adjacent buildings and the weakest one went down?

"Controlled demolition" for WTC 7 again stretches Cred.. there was no plane involved so.. if that's the case why use planes at all for the others if you are going to expose your true method in building 7.

It is a separate building..so there was no plane allocated to targe that structure.. it just sounds too.. wayyyyy too fantastic that this could be a controlled demolition thing.. how in the world could they guarantee that the evidence would be removed withOUT a HOST of people able to testify to all that?

Poly, You asked, "how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?" and I answered "...Haliburton...".
To which you respond:
"So Symp....ur saying that it's all about Haliburton making a pipeline which will benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA ?
Kinda stretches the cred a tad you know. There are so many other factors to consider."

Actually I was not saying that it was "all about Haliburton", but the fact that the former CEO of that corporation was one of the decision makers in initiating the war on Afghanistan is significant.

Nor was I saying that the pipeline would "benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA", as you well know. Haliburton is only one of the corporations to benefit, along with the oil companies extracting, refining and distributing the oil, all well represented in the Bush/Cheney cabinet.

I suppose you accept the line that it was all about saving the poor people of Afghanistan from the dreaded al Qaeda/Taliban dictatorship?

daggett: << Others may choose to look at daggett's recent contributions at OLO...

[...]

I urge people to look at the evidence as cacofonix has urged. >>

James, I tend to think you're getting obsessed when you trot out your "cacofonix" sock puppet in order to back up what "daggett" is arguing, particularly when it involves a far-fetched conspiracy that's been well and truly debunked.

It's a pity, because you often raise good points and then go and blow your credibility by raving on about some conspiracy or another, more often than not deploying one of your sock puppets to try and support your ideas.

CJM to me it is your own credibility in question. You are the sockpuppet. You are the raving lunatic who is opposed to any further exposure of the attacks.

Whether you are naive, ignorant, or simply fearful of the implications, I'm not sure, but it's a disservice not to demand the truth and nothing but the truth that many of these facts (granted some are probably inaccurate, but do you really expect a conspiracy theorist to be 100% accurate when all intelligence agencies allegedly failed to detect the attacks, and crafted lies about the Iraq War?).

It sounds like you need to read this a bit and learn something about history, abuse of power and governments, and the people in them: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/How-To-Start-A-WarMay02.htm

Do I need to even mention that the Iraq War was a TOTAL FABRICATION of Western govenrments (inluding intelligence agencies) and the media?

It is no coincidence that most of those conspiracy theorist who think somehow Mr Bush had something to do with 9/11 are also strong believers in global warming (sorry climate change). And to think that they are the first to mock creation. Just hilarious! Next you will be arguing that the dope you have been smoking has not affected your rationality.

dagget, http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html A detailed examination of the claims in Loose Change and where they fall short.

I think that may be sufficient.

I will leave other users an form their own judgments as to whether or not 'cacofonix' (i.e myself) like at least two other OLO user accounts, is a fictitious invention of daggett, as C J Morgan has alleged.

If people conclude that it is, then they should also ask themselves if it is likely, as C J Morgan implies, that daggett, having little credibility of his own on OLO, found it necessary to invent at least three other accounts to shore up his shaky credibility, particularly in order to peddle crank conspiracy theories that would otherwise receive little hearing.

I would suggest that even to pose that question would show up C J Morgan as, at best, being illogical and paranoid. Given that there have already been at least two long-winded and time-consuming arguments over this started (in my view with malicious intent) by C J Morgan including the one at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97773 is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off, given that C J Morgan had already jumped in to denounce daggett's initial contribution as "conspiracy crap" which is "off the wall"?

If anyone were to choose to examine the thread referred to above they would find that another user openly admitted to having set up a second account.

Even if it were to be found that daggett was guilty of having committed that same heinous crime, I would suggest that it may have been for motives, less sinister than what C J Morgan has implied, for example, to get around the OLO limits in order to provide useful and timely contributions to the discussion. Indeed, even C J Morgan himself at one point during that marathon argument curiously acknowledged the value of my contributions.

Of course, having more than one account technically that breaches OLO's rules and whoever is found to have done so faces the prospect of being penalised by the OLO administrators as C J Morgan attempted to have them do to daggett.

However, I would suggest that far worse abuses of OLO occur all the time and quite within the rules of OLO - abuses regularly committed by the likes of C J Morgan: personal attacks, repetition of arguments without acknowledgment of responses to those arguments, etc.

Even though those abuses don't breach OLO rules, I, nevertheless, harm this forum in many far more substantial ways. I know of a number of people who simply don't bother to contribute any more to OLO because they are sick and tired of having to deal with the likes of C J Morgan.

I suggest to anyone who may be concerned at these allegations against daggett to look at the totality of his contributions as well as articles written by him for OLO, as James Sinnamon, as well as the relatively few I have made and ask whether they have caused harm to OLO or have enhanced its value.

I would also suggest that they look at C J Morgan's contributions to OLO and decide for themselves whether they agree with me that even thought they may not formally breach the rules of OLO, they do, in fact detract substantially from OLO.

Some may find useful a summary daggett wrote of C J Morgan's early contributions to that abovementioned forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96360

Honestly, if the those people you know who no longer post to OLO because of CJM were of your calibre cacofonix/daggett/James, I would say that the tone of the place is much better than it would otherwise have been. And I would have to thank CJ for his diligence and influence.

Now will you care to join your friends?

daggett's posts contain a lot more than the single link to loose change, Agronomist (even then a good part of the link you've provided is opinion)

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al protesteth too much, methinks.

If you don't want me to alert people to your use of sock puppets, James, just don't use them.

C J Morgan/Bugsy wrote "Now will you care to join your friends?"

No, thank you. It seems that a few others around here appreciate my contributions, even if you don't.

Now can I ask you as I did before: Are you intending to either engage with the facts or will you go elsewhere as you promised when you wrote:

"Just to please you cacofonix, I will no longer waste my energy on it."

"Now I'll leave you inquiring minds to it then."

?

If you intend to engage with the facts, could you please explain why you accept the nonsense at http://wtc.nist.gov/ that 475 Architects and Engineers and architects and engineers, represented by http://ae911truth.org, reject? Do you think it likely that a fire that we are told started at one end of the building and spread throughout would have suddenly produced such a uniform smoothe collapse of the whole of WTC7 at barely less time that what it would have taken for an object to free fall free the height of the building, when nothing like that has ever occured, except in controlled demolitions, before or since?

Do you believe in the laws of physics?

C J Morgan/Bugsy wrote "If you don't want me to alert people to your use of sock puppets, James, just don't use them."

Do as you wish, C J Morgan/Bugsy, but don't assume that I will be wasting any more of my time engaging with you.

One of my senior Pastors would say that "conspiracy theory" is demonic and established to destabilise world society so that people no longer trust good governments.

He would be right. If you knew the evil spirit realm as many committed christians do, you would also agree.

Theres simply no eye witness testimony to a group of conspirators in the US government off in a back room somewhere planning to get some Islamic named guys into planes to crash them into New York buildings.

It might have made sense if JFK had been a target of a conspiracy, he sure stirred up a lot of people, but really whats the point of a small group of Americans killing a larger group of Americans.

All a "9/11 conspiracy theory" will do is twist the brain and screw the heart and create a whole world of anxiety and frustration for those who dance with it.

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al: << Do as you wish, C J Morgan/Bugsy, but don't assume that I will be wasting any more of my time engaging with you. >>

That's fine by me, James - but don't assume that because you feel entitled to break the forum rules by using several sock puppet accounts that I do too.

I have no idea who Bugsy is in real life, but he usually makes a lot more sense than you and doesn't need to to tell lies to do so.

To those who suggest that no possible motive for figures in the U.S. government to commit such a crime against their own poeople, I refer them to reasons 32-34 of "The top 40 reasons to doubt the officialstory of September 11, 2001" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

I refer them also to Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". Whilst Naomi Klein has not personally taken a stance on the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement, abundant abundant evidence of the existence of motives for the attacks can be found in its pages.

Chapters 14 to 20 show how wealthy corporations and in some cases U.S. government figures personally including Donald Rumsfeld, profited masively at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer and from countries conquered by the U.S. following the 9/11 attacks.

If 9/11 is/was an inside job.. a false flag operation....

would anyone like to have a dabble into the 'One World'/New World Order scenario which certain high profile and very very rich Americans seem to think we need ? :)

If it was not what it is purported to be (An Al Qaeda/Islamist attack) then the other option is rather more scary.

Come on people, we all know the American government ALWAYS tells the 100% truth, acts only for the good of all humanity and is incorruptible.

Gee, I believe EVERY word they say about 9/11. They're such good guys! Just ask 'em, they'll tell ya!

C J Morgan/Bugsy,

I note you have dodged answering the question in a previous post, so I will ask it again: "... is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off?"

Anyway, my other question was: Why should I care what you think?

The fact that you have failed to provide any substance to back up your assertion that "this 9/11 conspiracy crap is completely off the wall" (in other words that you uncritically accept the US government's explanation) would confirm that personal attacks such as this are intended to divert people's attention from this fact.

---

If there happen to be any structural enginers around, they should have a look at

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/investigation.html
# The total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 where the largest failures of engineered steel structures in history.

* No one anticipated such buildings could fall from fires.
* Fires have never leveled steel-framed buildings.
* Only severe earthquakes have caused total collapse.

# If official explanation is correct then:

* Existing engineering theory is invalidated. A new phenomenon -- progressive collapse -- has to be invented.
* No steel-frame building is safe -- Isolated fires can cause total collapse.
* Billions of dollars in retrofitting will be required.
* Firefighters should no longer enter burning buildings.

Then they should have a look at examples other far more severe high-rise fires in which the buildings were NOT pulverised and flattened at

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.html

Check out "Some Proofs of Demolition in regard to the twin towers at: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/proofs.html

1. The towers' concrete was pulverized in the air.
2. The steel superstructures of the towers provided no more resistance to the falling rubble than air.
3. The expansion rate of the dust clouds produced by the collapses indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitational energy.
4. The South Tower's top shattered before falling into intact structure.

So, can anyone show me where these specific arguments have been refuted?

I for one would like to know why anyone would need to use more than one user name? Do you decide that your reputation is so poor that you need a new user name.

Personally, I, and I imagine MOST people with any integrity, respond to the ideas posted and not to the person posting. I certainly have more than once unintentionally offended a poster whom I had previously had cordial agreement with, when they ventured a view I am vehemently opposed to. I generally try and comment on the ideas rather than the person.

I can think of a few people who may be typecast, but they can do something about that if they want. However, I'm suggesting that ANYONE who uses more than one user name immediately revert to their old username and apologise to the rest of us, or face more outing, CJ Morgan style.

Perhaps those in the know might even start a list somewhere of those people who are using more than one user name. A wall of shame.

Paul.L wrote, "I imagine MOST people with any integrity, respond to the ideas posted and not to the person posting"

I would go further. I would suggest that ANY person with any integrity would respond to the ideas posted.

If my name is to be put on a "wall of shame", then I would like the right to create another "wall of shame" to which names of those who habitually engage in personal attacks whilst adding little of substance to these discussions (or, in the case of this discussion, nothing of substance).

Anyhow, Paul.L, you're also free to show me and everyone else why the 9/11 Truth movement are wrong.

Have you listened yet to the debate on http://noliesradio.org ? Do you believe that Micchels Shermr acquitted himself well?

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al: << "... is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off?" >>

Well, if he hasn't, it certainly isn't for want of trying! One thing about James and his sock puppets - they certainly "pull" together.

Princess Diana did it.

Dagget,

If that’s the name your using for the moment, how about you apologise for deliberately misleading everyone here by posting under another username.

Secondly,

I see your post is pretty much lifted whole from the “IDIOTS GUIDE TO 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORY” AKA the 911 Research website. You really can’t be serious. The site has NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE of any kind. Go see a debunking site and NOTE the massive difference in supporting evidence and intellectual rigour.

You say >> Existing engineering theory is invalidated. A new phenomenon -- progressive collapse -- has to be invented.

Mate this is bullsh!t on a basic level. For starters engineering theory is NOT invalidated. In any case there is really no such thing as ENGINEERING theory, there is Statics, Dynamics and Physics in general.

"The WTC was constructed in quite a unique manner. The towers were designed as framed tube structures, providing tenants with open floor plans. The World Trade Center had a steel facade, with 59 perimeter columns on each side of the building, that were designed to resist lateral and gravity forces. The interior core was designed only to carry gravity load."
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center

See here for details and pictures of the construction of the WTC. http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

Timeline of the north tower collapse
NYPD helicopters report deteriorating conditions of the North Tower.
• At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reports that the top of the tower might be leaning.
• At 10:21 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reports that the North Tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south.
• At 10:27 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very shortly.
• At 10:28 a.m., the NYPD reports that the tower is collapsing. http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center

you say >> “No steel-frame building is safe -- Isolated fires can cause total collapse.”

Again more rubbish. Each building needs to be assessed on its own merits. Those buildings like the WTC may be at risk from catastrophic fires. Isolated fires? You mean 10-20 stories completely ablaze.

TBC

CONT,

”The aircraft, traveling at 470 mph, hit the building at the 94-98th floors. The aircraft was carrying approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, which is less than half of capacity.[14] At impact, the aircraft was banked 25° to the left, cutting a gash that was over half the width of the building and extended from the 93 to 99th floor.[14] 15-18 perimeter and 5-6 core columns were severed at the 95th/96th floors.[15] A large section of the 96th floor slab, 40 ft wide and 80 ft in depth, was destroyed upon impact.[15] Insulation was knocked off nearly all the core columns and 40 foot portion of the floor trusses on the south side of the tower.[15] Twelve perimeter columns were severed on the 97th floor.[16] In all, 35 perimeter and six core columns were severed.[16] Fireproofing insulation was stripped off of 43 out of 47 core columns, as well as floor trusses covering 60,000 ft2 of area.[17] http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center

* Firefighters should no longer enter burning buildings.

What?? Do you really WANT to be taken seriously, whatever your name is?

You say >> “... other far more severe high-rise fires ”

Has it even occurred to you to compare the construction methods, design and materials to see if these examples have ANY relevance? Also, did a 315,000lb aircraft fly into any of those buildings at 3/4 the speed of sound? Think about what a couple of ounces of lead can do at the speed of sound, ie bullets.

You say >> “ The steel superstructures of the towers provided no more resistance to the falling rubble than air.”

You don’t need to look very far to find the debunking of the “free-fall-theory”
Here are pictures to help you understand, http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

You say >> “The towers' concrete was pulverized in the air.”

You don’t think a couple million tonnes of steel and concrete might pulverise some concrete? Or maybe you are talking about the “puffs-of-dust” theory which has also been THOROUGHLY debunked. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#puffs

you should have a look at what this structural engineer had to say http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm
or this one http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#puffs

I can see that I have been again arguig with someone who is either a moron or who chooses to act like a moron for reasons known only to himself.

I certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for him to explain to us, amongst other things, where the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been "been well and truly debunked".

Whether it was a conspiracy or not, as far as the aims of PNAC were concerned, it was certainly the right thing happening at just the right time.

The situation was also made much worse by a peculiar series of coincidences.

Most major items can seemingly be explained away but there are still many smaller unresolved but significant items still outstanding.

Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Lusitania and more recent revelations about Pearl Harbour, things will eventually reveal themselves.

No, I won't be apologising, Paul.L for reasons I will explain below and if the allegations were true I would certainly not confess to them in these circumstances for reasons which should be understandable to anyone capable of reason.

Obviously it is beyond my own control whether or not this inquistion is to persist, but if it does, it will clearly be difficult for much progress to be made in discussing the topic at hand, which I believe is clearly the intention of a number of people here.

If you had read the posts you would have understood the point (which CJ Morgan is pretending not to understand), that is, if I had intended to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, then why would I have done it in a forum in which CJ Morgan was contributing, given that he has already blown the whistle on me a number of times before?

I would suggest that a possible motive may have been to test whether or not CJ Morgan was still as apparently as malevolent as he has been on past occasions.

That question has obviously been answered.

I point out again that CJ Morgan has yet to make single substantive contribution to this forum. His first contribution was an attack upon myself. I asked him to substantiate his claim against me even before cacofonix contributed and he failed to do so.

Paul L. has listed a few "debunking 9/11" sites.

David Ray Griffin has written a comprehensive debunking of the 9/11 debunkers. Here is a sample:

http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html

Far from being "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11 Truth Movement has been the debunker of the official conspiracy theory and its in-house 'experts'.

My point, James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al, is that by recalcitrantly lying about your habitual use of multiple sock puppet identities, you 'demolish' any credibility you might otherwise have had.

This plays into the hands of wingnuts like Paul.l, particularly when you do it to promote crackpot ideas like the 9/11 conspiracy crap.

You really don't do your cause any favours, and this annoys me when you're spouting forth about real issues that actually matter - unlike this topic.

CJ,

As much as I am offended by dagget's deliberate deception, and by his BLIND acceptance of this particularly distasteful conspiracy theory, I think HE at least has a reason to be here.

I can think of NO reason whatsoever why you should be allowed to continue to post. It is clear from your posting history that your NUMBER ONE goal on OLO is to abuse and denigrate, without any discussion of the topic. You add NOTHING of any value to any discussion. So why don't you go away you sad little man.

Humpty Dumpty: << It is clear from your posting history that your NUMBER ONE goal on OLO is to abuse and denigrate, without any discussion of the topic. You add NOTHING of any value to any discussion. >>

Good to see I'm still getting up your wingnut nose. However, as you well know, I often contribute substantive comments in discussions that are being conducted by rational and reasonable people - in which case, you're a liar too. You and James are flip-sides of the same coin.

<< So why don't you go away you sad little man. >>

I'm neither sad nor little, and one reason I don't go away is that I derive much amusement in pointing out bullsh!t, hypocrisy and hate-speak that comes from nasty little wingnuts like you.

Why don't you go away, you sad little engineering student?

Paul.L,

Whilst we have mostly diametrically opposed political views and whilst I don't even consider some of your debating tactics (as you would probably say of me), we still seem to share some basic values of online decency, so, thank you.

If you feel that you have been deceived, then I apologise. However, I ask that it be judged in the light of the malicious flaming I have been made to endure in the past.

If I had been blatently abusing a second account, I fully expected to have been called to account for it sooner or later by even reasonable OLO contributors, and I had also not ruled out the likelihood that I would be outed again by CJ Morgan, regardless.

I believe I have sufficient credibility in my own right not to have to resort to the use of second accounts, so I think that most will accept that my motives were far more pedestrian.

Anyhow, as anyone who does look at my home page will appreciate, I do have a life outside OLO, so if the worst were to come of this, I would still have plenty of avenues left for self-expression.

The initial transgression that CJM blew the whistle upon was clearly not, contrary to CJM's claims, an attempt to deceive OLO users about the origins of the material, even if it appeared to transgress an OLO rule. However, my subsequent attempts to reason with him over this came to nothing. Instead of allowing the issue to blow over, he chose to create an acrimonious witch hunt atmosphere in which I was singled out even though another OLO user openly admitted to having done the same. In that atmosphere it would have been very difficult to admit to the allegation either explicitly or with a nod and a wink. Of course, denying the truth of his accusations made my alleged crime even more heinous in CJM's lurid imagination.

(tobecontinued)

I don't think anybody is in any doubt that your motives were pedestrian, daggett. That you have ben caught and then point the finger at someone else as doing the same thing in order to somehow justify your position, well that just doesn't wash. Imagine saying "but he did it too, your honour!". Now the weasly justifications and attempts to undermine your accusers start, it's just sad really.

(continuedfromabove)

The first sentence of the previous post should have read: " ... whilst I don't even consider some of your debating tactics [fair] (as you would probably say of me) ..."

---

CJ Moron,

You are plainly feeling smug and self-satisfied from what you hold to be your own alertness and brilliant detective work, however, it seems to me that what you have really done is to have outed yourself as the narrow-minded pedant and sanctimonious two-faced hypocrite that you are (but you are probably too stupid to realise that).

So, do me a favour. If you must maintain your presence on the same forums as me, please don't ever pretend to be any different from what you have shown yourself to be here.

For me, that would be vastly preferable than having to continue to cope with your recurring, insincere and patronising attempts to ingratiate yourself with me.

---

Welcome back, Bugsy.

(But hadn't you promised twice already to leave this forum?)

I expect that you would be the kind of person who could proudly boast that he has never taken a day off sick in his working life without being actually sick and would condemn without reservation anyone else who would ever contemplate doing so.

---

This time I have decided not to cram every possible word into this particular post. As other means to discretely contribute to this discussion in the immediate future are obviously not available any more without risking the outbreak of yet another hysterical witch hunt, I won't be making the effort to further contribute in order to respond to Paul.L's post for at least another day.

Perhaps, either Bugsy or CJM could make use of the opportunity to introduce some actual substance into the discussion, for a change, in order to maintain its momentum.

What momentum?

>>Perhaps, either Bugsy or CJM could make use of the opportunity to introduce some actual substance into the discussion, for a change, in order to maintain its momentum.<<

All that happens here is that folk trawl through the internet to find the latest conspiracy or rebuttal.

Original thought: nil.

Momentum: nil.

Pericles,

Don't hide your light under a bushel. Regale us with your entirely original ideas on this subject. We wait with bated breath.

There there, James - like I said, if you don't use your sock puppet/s I'll stop lampooning them. As I implied early in the thread, my main reason for outing you was that you appeared obsessed with this claptrap, to the point where you obviously feel entitled to use sock puppets in order to proclaim the paranoid ideas that you imagine the whole world is on tenterhooks to hear.

You have every right to indulge whatever paranoid conspiracy fantasies you like, but in this forum it's cheating if you do so using sock puppet accounts to increase your posting limits. Imagine if every other nutbag who rants and raves on here felt the same as you do and simply disregarded the rules so they can get around the posting limits? Cripes.

Since I originally outed James and his sock puppets, I've been mostly amused at their regular, if sporadic appearances in various debates. Some are downright funny:

<< I would less charitable in regard to Saddam Hussein. bla bla bla... Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 9:47:51 AM >>

Followed 15 minutes later by

<<daggett,

I agree with your post, except that I don't think rache was being any more charitable to Saddam Hussein than you were. bla bla bla...
Posted by cacofonix, Wednesday, 20 August 2008 10:01:20 AM >>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#43262

What a fascinating conversation to have had with yourself, James - and it's by no means the first time that your subterfuge has exceeded "pedestrian" frustration with posting limits, is it?.

However, a cursory glance at "cacofonix"'s posting history shows that the appearance of such gems leapt from a couple a month to 13 in the last 3 days - which is of course why I thought "cacofonix" needed to be outed again as one of James Sinnamon/daggett's sock puppets.

That the topic is shite just means that I'm not disrupting any kind of serious discussion.

I never "promised to leave this forum", you're just making things up.

I do recall saying that I wouldn't expend any more energy thinking about this 9/11 crap. I think I've delivered on that one so far (apart from posting a link of course, but I didn't have to think about conspiracies to do it).

daggett, cacofonix, Sympneology and Steel, (have I missed anyone here?). A few more resources for you. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=98

I think all of these sites contain proper scientific discussion of the issues and will answer most of your questions on the topic.

Happy reading one and all.

I really don't know why I am doing this, I am sure it is a total waste of time. Perhaps if only to let you know how easy it is to see through the conspiracy theory.

Bugsy,

I'm sorry, but I presumed that not wasting any more of your time thinking about this issue implied that you would not be posting to this forum.

After all, Bugsy, what possible value to people who do wish to discuss a subject would be a post on that subject by someone who had not given it any thought?

Do you understand why others might consider someone who posted comments into which they had not put any thought would be considered a nuisance?

---

As for CJM's latest post, if it is still there, I have requested that it be removed.

I asked that it be removed on the grounds that it is not in any way addressing the topic at hand.

At the end of his post he stated:

"That the topic is shite just means that I'm not disrupting any kind of serious discussion"

I would say that it makes CJM's attitude crystal clear. CJM doesn't consider this discussion to have any worth, so he believes that he is entitled to be as disruptive as he pleases without any regard to the wishes of those who do wish to discuss this issue.

I see no reason why the presence of a person with such an attitude should be tolerated for a minute longer on this forum, or indeed on OLO at all.

(In case CJM's post has disappeared by the time you read this, I have kept my own copy of it, should anyone wish to see it for themselves.)

Agronomist those links are mostly a mixture of opinion and conjecture. I hope you realise that while nitpicking the conspiracy theories may highlight inconsistencies or inaccuracies here and there, it does not offer any explanation. in other words, these sites are only as narrow as the frameworks of the objects of their derision. And these sites you've linked to are weak in that offering an explanation is much harder (especially from a viewpoint of obscurity and distance, such as are the conspiracy theories) than nitpicking propositions.

Agronomist,
Your selection of sites offering "proper scientific discussion of the issues" in fact answers none of my questions on the topic.

The first in essence bears out the main criticism of the NIST report in that it deals only with WTC 1 and 2 and does not deal with WTC 7 which was of an entirely different construction. It also affirms that the flames from the aircraft fuel could not melt steel so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble.

The second site complains about AE911Truth authors writing "outside their area of expertise". It is written by someone who describes himself as a "live speech writer and actor". Obviously an expert!

The third has a whinge about the producers of the 911Mysteries video "stealing" their video and adding explosions and police radio calls to it. Thanks to their showing the two versions over and over it became obvious that these were two different videos. In the one they claimed was their original is something that does not appear in the "copy" - an explosion of flame coming from one of the floors just below the level of the collapse.

The fourth is just a long PDF of the 911 Commission Report, which has been well and truly debunked.

I don't agree that you were wasting time. Your contribution has shown just how easy it is to expose the weakness of the official conspiracy theories.

Sympneology “so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble” Doesn’t have to. Remember the pile remained hot for a very long time after the collapse with the overbearing material keeping the heat in.

If you really want engineering information that describes how the collapses happened go to these:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/?p=af305ef1f04243598e063b8d0de84c14&pi=3
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9615qr01381223n4/?p=59edf424180f428ab5b595731dea5e07&pi=12
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f08uu7jk6t821848/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/113x89267395h768/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p42m41t753721442/?p=59edf424180f428ab5b595731dea5e07&pi=15
http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/content/h136637317516x47/?p=ee47b9a39b6e496685bc2c38faa7b563&pi=16
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0500041
http://www.springerlink.com/content/lp0431483014j475/
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0800818
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0303235

When you have read all these come back and have a chat about the building collapses.

For the moment, I can comfortably ignore Steel. All writing that Steel doesn't agree with will be dismissed as a mixture of opinion and conjecture.

Steel

You say >> “.I hope you realise that while nitpicking the conspiracy theories may highlight inconsistencies or inaccuracies here and there, it does not offer any explanation”

Are you serious? Did you miss the two 315,000lb planes flying into the twin towers at mach 0.75? They were the root cause of the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2. As for WTC7. It was hit by massive pieces from the collapse of the twin towers. See http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Frankly, the fact that WTC7 collapsed is evidence that this was not a conspiracy. I can understand placing explosives in buildings which you had idiots intending to fly into, but bringing down a building not hit by planes using explosives would be entirely unrealistic.

Symneology

I went to the site you posted.
http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html
There were no scientific facts introduced at all. This is typical of conspiracy nut websites these days because all their original claims have been comprehensively debunked.

The “9/11 truth movement”, surely an ironic misnomer if ever there was one, now suggests that the real evidence for the conspiracy theory is Motive and Capability. Ie the US gov’t had a motive and they had the capability.

So please show me the physical evidence which proves that the WTC 1,2 and 7, were demolished using explosives.

BTW, The implication must be that every scientist/engineer who has examined the evidence and agrees with the official explanation, must be part of the conspiracy.

Maybe those on OLO are conspirators as well.

Agronomist and Paul.L - you're completely on the money here. Kudos to you for bothering to refute this nonsense (for the umpteenth time in the blogosphere, as well as more serious forums). As should be obvious, I'm not inclined to give this "9/11 Truth" crap any oxygen at all.

As should also be obvious, "sock puppets" are a pet hate of mine and I delight in outing them. I have this thing about honesty in discourse, a concept that doesn't seem to be shared by some people who post regularly to OLO. It's quite satisfying to expose lies when they are deployed, particularly when it's done by those who invite robust responses by their manner of articulating their opinions.

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al - my post's still there. On re-reading it, I still think it's a quite reasonable response to your antics here. Apparently, the moderator agrees - indeed, I would have been surprised if your smug use of multiple identities would have been supported, given your open flouting of the forum rules.

However, as I've said, so long as you keep your sock puppets in the drawer I won't draw attention to them.

Agronomist wrote:
'Sympneology “so does not explain the molten steel found under the rubble” Doesn’t have to. Remember the pile remained hot for a very long time after the collapse with the overbearing material keeping the heat in.'

Yes, it does have to. Remember that the report said that the burning fuel was not hot enough to melt steel. So while the overbearing material kept the heat in that does not explain how the steel melted in the first place.

I am surprised you folk are even bothering to give this thread space and time.

Most "conspiracy theories" are the ravings of minds with more time to spare than jobs or purpose to fulfill or the small minded envy of under achievers, as an excuse for their personal failings.

The idea that 9/11 was due to CIA/FBI US Government incompetence would be laughable if it were not so offensive a suggestion.

Better leave the feeble minded to play with their conspiracy theories and pull their welfare cheques, at least we can keep an eye on them and be ready when their paranoia gets out of hand(like lab rats).

Sympneology, Ignorance is indeed bliss. Is that the best you can do?

Who said the metal melted in the towers?

The data in this paper http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/?p=af305ef1f04243598e063b8d0de84c14&pi=3 concludes that the evidence is metal removal from the beams occurred after the building had collapsed and while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile.

The first reports of molten steel under the towers came 6 weeks afterwards in the American Free Press.

Paul.L wrote:
"Symneology
I went to the site you posted.
http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html
There were no scientific facts introduced at all. This is typical of conspiracy nut websites these days because all their original claims have been comprehensively debunked."

No scientific facts were intended to be introduced, just a pointer to the fact that your claims to have "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11Truth movement have been themselves debunked.

"So please show me the physical evidence which proves that the WTC 1,2 and 7, were demolished using explosives."

Molten steel for a start. Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7. If not by explosions, how did the steel melt?

"The implication must be that every scientist/engineer who has examined the evidence and agrees with the official explanation, must be part of the conspiracy."

Not necessarily. Most people find it very hard to contemplate the dreadful implications of accepting the culpability of the US Government in committing such an atrocity. Much better to scapegoat a few aliens.

CJM wrote: "Agronomist and Paul.L - you're completely on the money here. ..."

That's a stunning contribution!

It seems that those of us who judged CJM as having no ideas of his own were way too quick off the mark.

CJM wrote: "As should also be obvious, 'sock puppets' are a pet hate of mine and I delight in outing them. ... It's quite satisfying to expose lies when they are deployed, particularly when it's done by those who invite robust responses by their manner of articulating their opinions."

So who needs to argue the facts with achievements like that under one's belt?

CJM wrote, "... Apparently, the moderator agrees ..."

I am still awaiting his response. If he sees nothing wrong with the way you have conducted yourself, I would be astounded.

Anyway, anyone wanting further lessons in "honesty in discourse" stay tuned to CJM's posting history at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28653

It seems that James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al is more interested in protecting his sock puppets than defending his preposterous thread. From my perspective they're equally bulldust, but I guess James feels he needs to prioritise his formidable credibility.

Thanks to James for directing readers to my posting history. Those who follow the link will see that I delight in lampooning frootloops and bullsh!t artists, not to mention those who promulgate fear and loathing in the community.

James and his sock puppets fit well into that range of deserved targets of derision.

I await James Sinnamon's next tightly packed 350 word missive in defence of his entitlement to flout the rules under which the rest of us mere mortals engage in debate at OLO.

Agronomist, That site reinforces the argument for controlled demolition, i.e. the office fires in WTC 7 could not have melted the steel sufficiently to cause the building to collapse at near free-fall speed.

For a good look at the physics involved see:
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm?comments=no#comments

I am not an expert and I still have a long way to go to understand all the claims and counterclaims. However I thought it was necessary to have a proper discussion of this on OLO, and thanks to a few people more knowledgeable than I, this is beginning to happen.

As I made clear, essentially from watching or listening to others argue over this, I can't accept the official U.S. Government conspiracy theory.

One thing that threw me a few days ago was learning that well known 'skeptic' Michael Shermer had embraced the official conspiracy theory and hade denounced the 9/11 Truth movement. However, listening to the radio debate on http://noliesradio.org quickly made it clear that Shermer's word should not be considered final on this.

As I learnt from one of the links above another famous skeptic has also come out against the 9/11 Truth movememt. That person is James Randi who, from the 1970's, exposed Paranormals such as Uri Geller as frauds.

No doubt having such celbrites in the camp of the supporters of the official conspiracy theory will have caused many who would have been more open minded to dismiss the alternative conspiracies theories out of hand.

Anyhow, here is what I found to be an intesting article about James Randi's stance on 9/11 by someone who had otherwise had a great deal of admiration for him: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread147115/pg1

What a fascinating thread this has become!

daggett (who has always made clear his real identity as James Sinnamon), in his opening post, claimed to have somehow touched raw nerves in raising the issue of the '9/11 Truth Movement' in another discussion. He made it, in my view, reasonably clear that he felt no compulsion to embrace either position in relation thereto. He just seemed disquieted. The existence of raw nerves has clearly become more evident as the thread, and latterly, the discussion, has proceeded.

As one who was not even aware that WTC 7 had come down, let alone had any active interest in the controversy, I was fascinated to read, in the link provided by Sympneology in his post of Friday 26 September 2008 at 4:44:43 AM, this quote from David Ray Griffin:

"To be a credible, responsible defender of either the official or alternative theory about the WTC collapses, one need not have a degree in physics, engineering or any other technical field. What one needs is the ability to read with comprehension, to evaluate evidence, and to draw logical conclusions from that evidence. Our entire judicial system depends on the ability of laypeople - judges and jury members - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts."

Could not encapsulate my view better!

I note Sympneology's views expressed in this post: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=198#15855 . I think it to be potentially relevant to this controversy. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures in that vein: http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm . One at least relates to 9/11.

Without wishing to divert the discussion, I would be interested in Sympneology's view as to why this post has appeared to be a thread-killer: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2160#45836

Refocussing upon the WTC events, these thoughts may have some potential relevance: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#46421

All in all, a fascinating insight as to what OLO is all about.

Thanks, FG for showing your appreciation for the fact that I had set up this thread.

In fact, I was bracing myself for no responses other than disinterest, dismissal, derision or even more hysterical self-righteous moral indignation, an example of which I showed at the start of the thread. The fact that the person who told me that I should beg "forgiveness from the souls perished and their families for (my?!) atrocity" hasn't said anything similar here shows that at least that much ground has been conquered.

Thanks also FG for drawing people's attention to the fact that 'daggett' has never concealed his true identity (and I don't, in general, judge others who choose to post anonymously). I was once accused by a person well known to all of us here of having done that when commenting on one of my own articles, even though the link to my own home page was at the bottom of every post. It seems that some people believe that once someone appears to be guilty of having broken one rule, then they have the right to hurl any other accusation they choose regardless of the substance.

Anyhow, as people have unfortuntley witnessed, it is futile to attempt to reason about these questions. If anyone wishes to discuss further what has been said of me I can be reached through the link to my home page.

At the moment the threat of being suspended from OLO for a month is hanging over my head. At least if that occurs, some will be happy to know that I won't be the only person who is to be suspended.

I pointed out to the moderator that when I made the complaint, that being suspended myself is one outcome I had anticipated. Nevertheless, I thought that the issues I raised were sufficiently serious towarrant my taking that risk.

If I suddenly vanish from OLO (and I pointed out to the moderator I might not bother to return if the problems I have faced on OLO continue), I may choose to say more about this at http://candobetter.org/JamesSinnamon

Symneopology

You say >> “No scientific facts were intended to be introduced, just a pointer to the fact that your claims to have "comprehensively debunked" the 9/11Truth movement have been themselves debunked”

I BEG YOUR PARDON?? ?? The entire proof that Popular Mechanics and 911 Debunked have been themselves debunked, consists of a nitwit on a website who says so. That’s your proof?

Worse, I go to the site you directed Agronomist to see the “physics” evidence,

There I read this >> “What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later? “

Highly scientific this bloke.

Claims – This is the first time a steel framed building collapsed ever,

The response - In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Note the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. … In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Cont,

Claims - Towers fell at free fall speed.

Response - The towers did NOT fall at freefall speeds. You can see from the pictures that debris is falling faster than the building itself. Real engineer/physicists calculated that the time needed for a top floor to collapse was approximately 1/10th of a second, although this time decreased dramatically as the building fell, and greater forces were applied to each floor. http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg

See this conspiracy nut footage of the twin towers falling. In the first minute you see towers 1 and 2 falling, and you can clearly see large chunks of debris falling much faster than the buildings. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok&feature=related

Pictures of the same can be seen here http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Claims - WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

Response - According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Organisations involved in the NIST report: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

I suppose they are all IN on the conspiracy as well?

Here is NIST’s response to many claims made by conspiracy theorists http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

You say >> "Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7. "

Thermate is not an explosive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

see http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm for a full discussion of molten steel hypothesis

I know I said I wouldn't waste any more time on it but Forrest, you normally sound quite reasonable, so this for you.

Consider these two scenarios:

A relgious fanatic terrorist organisation decides to plot one of the biggest acts of terrorism in history on what they think are their biggest enemies. They have a history of attacking military and civilian targets like battleships and embassies.
They realise that to make any kind of impact, they need to do it with multiple people and multiple targets, because all theor previous plots involving only one target have either been stopped or fail to make much impact.
(Multiple targets, multiple cells get through- this is now the satandard mode of operation Al-Qaeda.)

Now, they plot and plan in secret over several years in small groups for the attack that will happen by surprise all at once on one single day.
Other Muslim terrorist organisations that they have links to have hijacked planes before and they know what works and how to do it, this is likely one of the techniques that is taught in the camps in Afghanistan, or previously Libya. Lots of Libyan-sponsored terrorists used to hijack planes.
In one hour they manage to be spectacularly successful because it comes as a complete surprise. Job done. America is seriously butthurt and commences a campaign of war and retribution that engulfs the Muslim world and enables them to call for jihad to anyone who will listen.
In this scenario, the american government acts opportunistically and encourages jingoism so that they can deliver their package of pain to their enemies wherever they are and seriously think they can change the world for the better by hard military action, lack of which by the previous administration they believed caused the problem in the first place.

Unlikely? ....cont'd

Scenario 2:

Elements of the American government/corporate/military (mix and match as you wish) secretly plots to gain for themselves more power and influence, or just want an excuse to start a war and make money.
So they engineer a massive demolition involving the three towers, a missile strike on the pentagon and a crashed jet in Pennsylvania.
This they do in total secrecy, without anyone coming forward, anonymously leaking details or anything like that. They lay hundreds to thousands of explosives charges for the demolition under the cover of secrecy in exactly the right spots, then wait until the time is ritght and they can crash the planes into the buildings and set off the charges. I goes off perfectly, the towers come down killing a couple of thousand civilians, the third tower gets pulled after seven hours and the Pentagon gets hit with a direct missle strike that does the job and nobody sees exactly what it is. This they are able to do in front of thousands of witnesses, with video and photogrqphs from every angle from all the news channels streaming live.
Now, the real work begins. They have to make sure that everyone involved doesn't tip off anyone else not involved, even anonymously.

They have to pay off and/or influence all the official investigators that will be commissioned to do the reconstructions and make sure that no explosive residues are tested for or found by cleanup crews. Not only do they have to seriously pervert the course of a massive investigation involving thousands of agents from law enforcement and intelligence organisations, but they have to be able to pin it on a known terrorist_group and make it stick. This they have done for years and must continue to do forever.

Which one is more likely?

I'm not saying that it cannot happen, but to have so many individuals involved that were all so amoral as to be involved in it for money or political reasons and to not have ANY of them sell out their co-conspirators nor have a twinge of conscience about it?

Come on.

Bugsy,

Do you believe in coincidences?

The 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers maintain that the collapse of the twin towers can be explained because:

1. a 767 had never been flown into such a building before, and
2. the construction was radically different from anything else before.

Yet WTC7's construction was far more conventional and no 767 had been flown into that (as I believe someone pointed out earlier).

It strikes me as too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions, when no similar phenomenum that hs not been a controlled demolition has been observed before or since.

If you read the 9/11 Truth literature you would see that they also had to grapple with the awful implications of their theory being true.

Given the enormous deceit that U.S. has engaged in before, including its fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq, it would not seem completely improbable that some would have been prepared in 2001 to take things a few steps further.

It is not necessary for thousands to have knowingly participated in the conspiracy. To have convered up for it as most of the 9/11 did woud have only required acceding to pressure to not probe too deeply as the link to the story provided by Pericles at http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/30/624314.aspx about how the 9/11 commission used evidence obtained under torture in their report.

Those who took away the steel from the collapsed WTC7 so fast need not have been in the know, even if they participated in the cover-up.

Coincidences happen.

The thing is, while the people participating in any cover-up do not have to be 'in the know', they do have to be kept from finding anything incriminating. You don't just have to make sure there's no evidence left, you have to make it fit the story. This doesn't just make the job harder, but exponentially so.

This doesn't just go for tower 1, 2 or 7. It goes for the Pentagon clean-up, it goes for the downed plane in Pennsylvania and subsequent clean-up and media coverage(or did that just 'not happen' as some were given to thinking). Independent researchers and investigators have to be kept from discovering anything that doesn't fit, because if they do, they need to either be eliminated or paid off right?

At the end of the day, all you have is a puddle of 'molten steel', and an observation of "that looks like a controlled demolition". Weak, mate, real weak.

Back to coincidences, the US administration us now fond of telling us that "the terrorists only have to get it right once, we have get it right 100% of the time". To flip it around a little, what's more likely, terrorists being lucky for a couple of hours or so, or a gigantic conspiracy that noone can seem to name being lucky for more than 7 years and counting. Until you brainiacs came along of course.

Dagget,

I can see why you might go for a conspiracy theory like this, when you seem to believe that capitalism is a huge conspiracy perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public by the US gov’t.

You say >> “The 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers maintain that the collapse of the twin towers can be explained because: 1. a 767 had never been flown into such a building before, and 2. the construction was radically different from anything else before.Yet WTC7's construction was far more conventional and no 767 had been flown into that (as I believe someone pointed out earlier).”

The twin towers fell only after fires weakened enough of the remaining columns to lead to total collapse. Those fires took only 56 and 102 minutes. WTC7 burned unattended for something like 9 hours. It also got sideswiped by 110 stories of the North Tower. There was a massive hole in WTC7 20 stories long caused by that collapse.

You say >> “Given the enormous deceit that U.S. has engaged in before, including its fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq,”

Iraq had WMD even if they did not have them at the time of the invasion. The fact that Saddam continually thwarted the inspectors attempts to properly survey the country led to this mistake. The suggestion that this was a conspiracy is nonsense. In any case, even if it was it pales into absolute insignificance when compared with the groundwork and the number of people needed to pull off 911.

Can you tell me why Dagget, the Gov’t would choose to demolish WTC7 with explosives when no plane had flown into it? Or why they chose not to pull down 3,4,5 and 6 which were all much closer. Can you tell me how they managed to get the north tower to fall such that it caused fire and damage to WTC7.

TBC,

Cont,

You say >> “It strikes me as too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions,”

Sorry what? The planes crashed into WTC1 and 2 on the same day. Those towers fell within 1.5hours and the north tower caused damage to WTC7 which in turn suffered a catastrophic failure 9 hours later.

Tell me why the US gov’t would demolish the buildings in a manner which looked like controlled demolition? They obviously didn’t care at all about casualties, why not put all the explosives on one side and make it look nothing like a controlled demolition? And Please don’t pretend for a second that they didn’t hav the capability. You conspiracy nuts whole case is built upon this idea that the US gov’t had UNLIMITED capability.

Finally, please tell me why these “conspirators” didn’t just detonate a dirty bomb, or even a small nuke? There are one hundred far easier ways to arouse the anger of the American public, that would have been far easier to carry out, far less costly in human lives, and far easier to cover up.

All this was carried out in full view of thousands of witnesses and hundreds of cameras. You suggest that not a single camera captured unequivocal evidence of demolition. How can that be. Its so unrealistic as to beggar the immagination

Here is an explanation for the collapse of WTC 1&2 by a British scientist:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2369411.htm

What I find problematic with his theory is that even if the loss of insulation made the steel deformable at less than 1500 degrees, that still does not explain the rapid collapse of the lower floors that were not affected by the flames.

Paul.L wrote, "The entire proof that Popular Mechanics and 911 Debunked have been themselves debunked, consists of a nitwit on a website who says so. That’s your proof?"

No it is not. Try reading what I wrote before shooting your mouth off. A pointer is just that, it points to something, in this case to David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunked". I recommend that you read it.

"Claims – This is the first time a steel framed building collapsed ever.
The response - In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses."

Here you go again, misquoting in order to demolish a straw man.
The claim was that it is the first time ever that a steel framed building has collapsed in seconds as a result of office fires. It referred to WTC7 which was not hit by a plane and did not have its fire-proofing removed.

"For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Note the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash."

The floors on fire were middle storeys, which were partly burnt out before the collapse. The Madrid/Windsor building had 29 floors above ground and burnt for 26 hours during which time the parts of the building which were not part of the concrete core sagged and fell at different times, not all at once in all parts simultaneously like WTC7.

Continued:

"Claims - Towers fell at free fall speed.
Response - The towers did NOT fall at freefall speeds. You can see from the pictures that debris is falling faster than the building itself."

Again that is not the claim, he said "near freefall", read the article again. He says that Building 7 fell in 6.5 seconds which is 0.5 seconds longer than free fall in a vacuum. Quote: "The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum."

"Claims - WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
Response - According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent."

Heller was calculating the speed of fall of all 47 storeys, not just 18 of them. Even so, for 18 floors of a steel framed buildig with only two of them on fire to collapse in 5.3 seconds is still pretty incredible. Heller has degrees in physics and architecture and is entirely independent of the US administration.

What a shame, we'll miss you.

If buildings collapsed this beautifully and cleanly without a single explosive charge or similar device, then they wouldn't need demolition teams to implode buildings. Nor would it require the whole buildings to be rigged and preped.

Secondly there are signs that certain groups knew about the attacks beforehand....it's literally unbelievable that the CIA failed to detect and US internal security failed at precisely the right time.

Steel,

You're right. We would be much better off flying 767's fully loaded with people and fuel into buildings we want demolished

“Steel “it's literally unbelievable that the CIA failed to detect and US internal security failed at precisely the right time.”

Not necessarily,

I recall the CIA did not even realize, back in 1989, that the USSR was about to “implode”.

The television interview with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is worth look (labelled "AE911 stuns Vancouver with local TV interview") lasting 20 minutes near the top left of the http://www.ae911.org is worth a look. Many of the sorts of questions being asked here were asked of Richard Gage.

They couldn't even keep the bugging of the watergate hotel secret.

How are they going to keep the total wiring of three massive buildings with 1000's of explosive charges, secret.

Nothing is secret anymore. No one takes their secret to the grave.

That there are people out there who believe that the US gov't could convince enough people that it was a good idea to blow up the WTC's, the pentagon, etc, and carry it out, just astounds me. There is no precedent for this kind of evil.

Can those who believe that the US gov't wanted to go to war, tell me why they couldn't have engineered a "tonkin gulf" type incident.

I mean, a small dirty bomb blowing up in the no-fly zone would have precipitated an invasion of Iraq. In fact why did this same gov't which perpretrated this great evil on its own people, let the fact that there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion get out? Surely if the could pull off the greatest conspiracy ever, they could find some pretend WMD's to keep the public happy?

Be careful not to create a strawman conspiracy theory. There are many differeing theories about the extent and degree of complicity by various agencies.

Also I think my prior comment already questions your interpretation. If the buildings fell due to an uneven fire on 1-2 levels of a building, then you would only have to lay charges on one level of the building to collapse them.

Kanga,
The site for that video of the Richard Gage interview is http://www.ae911truth.org

It is well worth watching.

Paul.L
'You say >> "Only explosives like thermate are capable of producing the molten steel found, not aviation fuel in WTC 1 and 2 nor office fires in WTC 7."
Thermate is not an explosive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate'

Wikipedia says: "Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades."

So it "can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time", i.e. it is a type of explosive.

Note that the "full discussion of molten steel hypothesis" only refers to thermite, not thermate which also contains sulfur.

Without entering into the controversy (I haven't read myself in yet) as to whether the WTC collapses were essentially controlled demolitions, I have gained the impression that a possible role of thermate, should it have figured in the events, is somewhat misunderstood.

My reading of the Wiki article informs me that thermate is an enhancement of thermite, thermite being incendiary in nature more so than explosive.

Typically the thermite reaction is used to weld, in situ, large structural steel components. Railway line joins are a common example. The reaction both heats up the abutting structural components to what, in forging terms, would be described as welding temperature, and also deposits molten iron produced by reduction in the thermite charge into the gap. The molten iron is retained in the gap by what amounts to a foundry mould built around the joint, and the molten iron from the charge intermingles with the melt achieved on the ends of the structural members, thus effecting the weld. The joint is not required to bear load until cooled.

I should imagine that if sufficient thermite, or thermate, was to be ignited adjacent to a load bearing steel column, a sudden failure would shortly ensue. Whether such failure would be accompanied by explosion-like noise I am unsure, but I suspect it might be.

I also suspect that it may be possible to apply, or emplace, thermite to a vertical column in a manner somewhat like the operation of a thermic lance. Thermic lances are used, for example, to cut (by melting) channels in solid granite beds in the process of quarrying the stone.

I don't know whether that helps resolve anything.

Also, should it be that a controlled demolition did occur, is it a necessary corollary that it would have been effected by 'black ops' agencies of the US government?

BTW, interesting to see that it was daggett that copped the claimed suspension. I had gained the impression that it was he who had acted appropriately in seeking a new topic, and had posted consistently to it subsequently. Other things involved, perhaps.

Just by way of further clarification to my last post regarding the assisted failure of load-bearing columns via the use of thermate, I suggest it may not be necessary to melt the whole cross-section of a column to produce a failure.

I do not pretend to any engineering qualifications, nor to knowledge of the precise design of the columns in question, but it strikes me that if only sufficient of the metal and/or concrete constituting the column was melted to reduce its remaining strength to less than that required to sustain its share of the load, then there would likely occur a catastrophic failure of the remaining unmelted part of the section.

That might mean that significantly less thermate may have been required in any such scenario than might otherwise have been imagined. It would be interesting to have civil engineering views on this possibility.

I have already obliquely referred, by means of this link ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103#46421

) in a previous post, to the earlier supposedly terrorist attack upon the WTC some years before 2001. It seems appropriate to now bring it to mind explicitly in this thread, as not all viewers follow all links given. Indeed, I myself have not yet done so.

I should imagine that at least parts, if not all, of the WTC would have been on that earlier occasion evacuated and treated as a crime scene. The issue of any perpetrators of a controlled demolition having had sufficient access to the structure to emplace their preparations has legitimately been raised by other posters in this thread. I question whether the earlier incident could have constituted such opportunity.

Was I a juror, and this controversy the evidence in a trial, I would be beginning to have reasonable doubts as to whether responsibility for the event had been properly allocated.

BTW I note daggett's topic has now reached the ton in regard to the number of posts. Not that I am trying to suggest that quantity equates necessarily with quality.

Have a restful productive suspension, daggett.

Sympneology,

Sorry about the bad link, and thanks for giving the correct link.

It would be interesting to see if any of those who agree with the US government position are able to present their case as well in an interview as did Richard Gage.

Are there any other videos or audios on 9/11 that you would particularly recommend? There certainly seem to be a lot.

To go off-topic, has anyone seen Michael Moore's "Sicko"?

I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone who has not seen it, but one of the topics dealt with is the poor treatment of many of the 9/11 rescue workers.

I am a mother, farmer, potter , have a Science degree from 25 years ago. I have believed 911 was an inside job for about 7 years. Have seen city people become extremely disconnected from nature and the bush in the last 10 years. I thought during the '90s that it was really strange where city people's thinking was going - and now we have arrived where city people believe in many lies of the criminals in the Liberal, Labor. Greens, and Nationals.
I thought the Iranian taxi driver in New York I heard as reported on AM on the 12th September 2001 was right when he said it was the work of the CIA/Mossad.
Today things got even more ludicrous when Garnaut was stating on the country hour on ABC that we should graze kangaroos instead of cattle. My husband and daughter were both laughing as they were just about to shift some cattle in the truck and they were imagining shifting hopping kangaroos.
The ABC is in bed with Garnaut and the whole global warming government garbage. They are trying to get rid of little farmers like us and sell us out to big coal and gas corporations. They will have to shoot us , we will never sell out.
I saw this this morning - Howard and Harper of Canada made exactly the same speech to kill a million many of them innocent Iraqis - we all have blood on our hands for allowing that to happen - we should be very ASHAMED. http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=16812#post16812

This post, the one hundred and fourth that has been made to this thread, but now appearing as the one hundred and third to the OLO viewer, is made as a matter of record.

It is a 'carcase post'.

It takes note of the fact that for a brief period earlier this morning a post by the Lord High Dymo, Scourge of all the Sock-Puppets, Thread-Labeller-in-Chief of OLO, once appeared in this place.

It would be useful to know, in the interests of encouragement of more courteous and constructive discussion on OLO generally, whether the brevity of this appearance was due to a post deletion request by a user, an unsolicited one-off moderation decision, or because a temporary suspension had been somehow evaded before the post was noticed by the OLO administration.

I have been of the understanding that in the case of a suspension the subject userID is automatically blocked by the site software. Is that truly so, I wonder?

I'm not attempting to call into question this moderation decision. My own mouse cursor was at one time hovering over the post deletion request button, but I restrained my index finger, not wanting to be mean. In the interests of better opinionating, can we have some explanation for the removal of the Lord Dymo's post, if that can be productively done without generating contention?

Welcome to OLO, Von. Try not to feel too ashamed on your own behalf about the war in Iraq. Australia's participation might have been seen as necessary Wergild for Pearl Harbour. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7725#120548 and subsequent posts in the thread.

Ya better watch out, Graham's got an itchy trigger finger lately.

Some say 9/11 was an Islamist_attack.

Others say it was an inside_job/false_flag operation by CIA/mossad etc.

Still others, while not denying either of the 2 above, claim it was the judgement_of_God. They extended this by connecting it to, among other things the gay and Lesbian movements and tolerance of them.

I wish to explore the possibility that whoever is behind it, it may indeed consitute some of the characteristics of divine judgement/wakeupcall/reminder.

When a nation becomes so obsessed with greed and gluttony, with materialism and moral miopia, they fall into the category of the Israelites when the prophets such as Isaiah addressed them.

Chap 1

15) When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;

One prophet who stand out not by the length of his oration/prophecy, but by its nature is Habakkuk.

Just 3 short chapters (compared to Isaiah's 66)

He writes: (Ch 1)

4 Therefore the law is paralyzed,
and justice never prevails.
The wicked hem in the righteous,
so that justice is perverted.

Sounds like a litigeous and greedy society to me.. Wall Street by any chance?

Gods response is that Judgement is coming.

6 I am raising up the Babylonians,
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwelling places not their own.

One might be tempted without further reading to think that God saw some righteous quality in the Babylonians which suited them to be the 'stick' in His hand.. Habbakuk even asks God this

12) O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment;
O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

Indeed...why use people worse than the Israelites to punish the Israelites? Reason...they were mean't to be the source of salvation and righteousness to the world in God's name.

It was not that the Babylonians (or Saudis in the planes) were more righteous than the Americans.. but that America simply needed judgement.

That settles it then - God did it!

....and the CIA are his Chosen People...

Thank you for an interesting thread Daggett.

I'm not sufficiently researched to make much comment, however, I remain intrigued over the BBC's lame excuse for their pre-empted reporting of Building Seven's collapse.

What do you make of that Daggett:?

http://www.freewebs.com/911truthseeker/911andbuilding7.htm

Thank you Dickie, Forrest Gump et al.

It's gratifying to know that some who are posting to this forum take the issue seriously independently of the issue of myself having been accused of having broken an OLO rule.

I have been suspended as FG correctly deduced, but at least I was not the only one. So, even if the suspension was not applied as diligently to all parties and even if the lengths of suspensions turned out not to be equal, contrary to what had been implied, then at least some good has come of it.

If suspension for one week is the price on has to pay around here for having stood up to bullying and trolling and for having referred to a moron as a moron, then fine.

---

PolyCarp, I really fail to see how introducing religious views into this discussions helps us to sort out whether or not the official US government explanation of the 9/11 attacks can be believed.

Gotta go now :( Will be back later this week.

HI Dagget

well.. all I'm doing is giving a perspective.

You might call it 'what goes around comes around'.... on steroids.

CJ might be right "God did it" :)

But I take this rather 'outer limits' perspective because this thread might have been better termed "9/11 misinformation" mainly because we are all so distant from the events and can only go by the info we glean from many sources. Some or all of which might be deliberately set up to produce a predictable outcome.

To me.. the idea of a grand CIA/usa Conspiracy to do this is so beyond absurd that it defies description. You would expect a government to approach such a thing in a MUCH MUCH better, more controllable, tighter manner where there is no room for speculation.

The amount of planning that such a conspiracy of this scale would entail is gainormous/humungous and ..just plain over the top.
There was sooooo many loose ends to tie up... it would have been SOO much cleaner to arrange a different approach.

Next we will be hearing how the first attempt to blow up the WTC was ALSO a CIA conspiracy... wont we?

We are wasting our time trying to be judge jury and executioner of the US government here. I just ask 'who benefits' from that line of enquiry?

That kinda says it all

Just briefly, I believe that the blackmail used against US Gongressmen recently in order to have the US$700 billion bailout legislation rushed through Congress after it had been rejected once is not altogether unrelated.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich contrasted the atmosphere of fear and panic that was used to stampede the Congressional Representatives into voting to hand across US taxpayers' money to the Wall Street Corporate criminals to the words of President Franklin Roosevelt back in the 1930's, when he said that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". There's some very good YouTube broadcasts on this. (I haven't time to get them right now. My apologies.)

Also http://www.michaelmore.com is worth a look.

Hi James.

Perhaps when you have time you (or one of your sock puppets)could also illuminate us about such related conspiracies as the faked NASA Moon landing, the Mafia/CIA assassination of JFK and the abduction by a Chinese submarine of Harold Holt?

Oh Lord High Dymo, doeth not thou this skating upon thin ice. Prithee, think but of the hearts in the mouths of the lookers-on. For the text thou hast chosen for this lesson is surely the text thou chose but few days past, when thou causest some to look daggets at thou.

Breathless, the cloud of OLO witnesses look on, horror struck.

Waiting for the axe to fall upon thy Lordly neck.

Hark, is that not the echo of the measured tread of Moderation that we hear?

I pray thee, Lord Dymo, take down thy post and walk.

Show the unbelieving that thou canst manipulate which posts stay, and which be taken down.

By all the Sock Puppets, I wouldst not have thought to see this day!

Oh give not cause for this wordly blood-sport, Lord Dymo, to claim thy head. Label forthwith for us the sock puppet that has caused this dread to come upon the Forum. Yea, verily we shall all gang up upon the wicked one(s). Give but the word that truly thou only knowest: out Damned Spot.

Can we not cast ducks' guts upon the pavement in propitiation for this thy bold and daring deed?

Leave us not in this way, unlabelled and adrift in the ocean of our own opinionating, unguided in our thoughts.

Sign of the cross: "Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch" and Amen to that FG!

Very droll, Forrest.

I thought I was being nice, in inviting James to exercise further his lively imagination.

Polycarp wrote:
"It was not that the Babylonians (or Saudis in the planes) were more righteous than the Americans.. but that America simply needed judgement."

Babylon is not in Saudi Arabia, it is in Iraq, and the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 has been exposed as just another one of the Bush/Cheney lies designed to advance the PNAC agenda by panicking the people into supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I am still puzzled as to how 19 Islamist terrorists managed to board the four aircraft without any of their names appearing on the passenger manifests. Don't they have to show a photo ID at check-in?

Dickie,

Thanks for the link to http://www.freewebs.com/911truthseeker/911andbuilding7.htm

I ask the supporters of the official conspiracy theory on this forum: How else can these words by Sliverstein, be explained other than than with knowledge that WTC7 had been prepared for demolition?

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they weren't sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And then they made that decision to pull -- and then we watched the building collapse."

The facts that Larry Silverstein owned WTC7 and that only a "mere two months before 9/11, he bought the entire complex; all seven of the buildings. Then he immediately took out a record insurance policy on them for over $3.5 billion, which he has since been paid" are yet more of the phenomenal number of coincidences related to the 9/11 attacks.

A good, but very long video presentation on the coincidence theory necessary for the official conspiracy official theory to stand up versus the alternative conspiracy theories can be found in the broadcast at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5236492071990669218

In that you will learn that all kinds of very well credentialed people of most kinds of political persuasions reject the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks (See also http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html mentioned above by Sympneology). These include William Christisen who worked as a CIA analyst for 28 years and Colonel Robert Bowman USAF. His details are:

Colonel Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force [ret] - Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech)

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Colonel Robert Bowman said:

"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. ...

"I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. ... that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."

---

Another very satisfying broadcast is about the phony 9/11 hero and U.S. Republican Presidential aspirant Rudy Giuliani running from firefighters in Des Moines at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZTova85IFQ&NR=1

---

I note that CJ Moron has yet to demonstrate any comprehension whatsoever of the case against the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks.

James Sinnamon et al: << CJ Moron >>

Now James, nowhere in our fascinating conversation in this thread have I called you names, although many have come to mind. I have no intention to respond in kind to your attempt to rekindle the flame war that got us both suspended for a week, but I do want to reiterate my opinion that I think that your 9/11 conspiracy fantasy is rubbish.

Of course, that's why I mentioned categorically similar conspiracy theories in my last post. As a former anthropologist, I've long been fascinated by conspiracy theories and urban myths, of which the "9/11 Truth" is shaping up to be something of a classic.

I have absolutely no objection to you raising the topic for discussion in this forum, however silly at may be. Indeed, I find the sheer elaboration of the paranoia quite fascinating. There's quite a corpus of academic literature about these kinds of conspracy theories and the kinds of people who subscribe to them.

That doesn't mean, however, that it's worth playing tedious evidential games where tendentious rants from aggrieved nobodies are accorded equivalent weight with the bulk of the credible evidence. As we all know, the Internet is replete with spurious "evidence" to support anything - and it seems that lots of people who know no better are prepared to accept it as authoritative.

I don't know why you feel the need to use sock puppets, and I don't really care. However, I think that by trotting out the "cacofonix" sock puppet identity and calling me a moron, you're trying to pick a fight again.

I'm not going to play, but I still think your premise is rubbish.

CJ Moron wrote: "That doesn't mean, however, that it's worth playing tedious evidential games ..."

I ask again: So, why are you here?

CJ Moron wrote: "I don't know why you feel the need to use sock puppets, and I don't really care. ..."

So, why are you here?

CJ Moron wrote, "... However, I think that by trotting out the "cacofonix" sock puppet identity and calling me a moron, you're trying to pick a fight again."

But it takes two to make a fight, doesn't it?

All you needed to do was to have walked quietly away from this forum, which you still insist is a complete waste of time, or better still, not have bothered to post that first comment accusing me without any substantiation, of being "a tad obsessive", and there could not possibly have possibly been a fight.

The reason I choose to address you as "CJ Moron" and not as "CJ Morgan", is, as I put it to you earlier, either you are a moron or you are pretending to be a moron. As I can't be completely sure that the former is not the case, I feel that I am entitled to assume the former until such time as you can demonstrate to me that you were only pretending to be a moron.

A good way to convince me that you were only pretending to be a moron would be to demonstrate a comprehension of the evidence presented in this forum against the official U.S. Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks and show me why you think it is wrong.

CJ Morgan,

As daggett/cacofonix/whatever wrote just now:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47461
"But it takes two to make a fight, doesn't it?

"All you needed to do was to have walked quietly away from this forum, which you still insist is a complete waste of time, or better still, not have bothered to post that first comment accusing me without any substantiation, of being "a tad obsessive", and there could not possibly have possibly been a fight."

---

The above was posted not in order to cause a fight with you, but in spite of that risk in order to post something of use to the discussion -- something you have proven yourself either incapable of doing or unwilling to do on the "9/11 Truth" forum.

The above post was intended for the Forum "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896 and not for here.

My apologies.

Hi,

Sockpuppet 911 reporting for duty. Thought I would try a slightly different analytical approach (posted in two parts due to word limits):
Part 1.
Does anyone deny that there must have been a conspiracy by someone to fly those planes into the towers?

No. There had to be a plan and it had to be secret.

So, the only questions remaining are

- who originated
- who carried out
- the conspiracy
- and for what reason?

It seems that those who suspect the US government of having originated, or carried out, the conspiracy generally find it difficult to believe the explanation that the US government has authorized for the 9/11 incident. They usually find it difficult because they find either the motives, modus operandi or the identification of the guilty parties unbelievable for one reason or another.

They then tend to assume that, since the US government explanation for what happened fails to convince them, that the US government has fabricated the explanation. They then assume that the US had a motive to do so and that the US had a hand in carrying out the 9/11 operation itself and is now covering this up.

A motive most often assumed is the US desire to take control of Iraqui oil. One means of control would be through invasion. Another means would be by buying Iraqui oil.

2nd Part:

FLAW: It is not known why the US would not have chosen to buy the oil rather than to invade Iraq.

COUNTER: Such a query relies on US currency remaining competitive on the open oil market and that market remaining an open, global one.

Could be that private industry was seeking to expand into military operations and that all parties feared that the price of oil would go up or get beyond their control so they sought to be in a position to control oil and prices by force. This needs exploring and would take up a whole article in itself. Even though Iraq still owns its oil, I find no doubt that Iraq decisions on oil are dominated by the US or US contractors operating like a government.

But the US did invade Iraq. To be able to do this the US had to find a reason to invade Iraq, after having propped up its regime for a long time.

Why US conspiracy theorists find the US explanation and guilt assignment implausible:

The US uses the self-professed Islamic hatred and resentment of the West as the major explanation for a number of Muslims having purportedly flown planes into the two towers.

Why don’t people believe this? And why don’t they believe that the identified Muslims didn’t carry out this remarkable exploit?

Personally, I thought the whole thing had a distinctive Hollywood design, but I guess that such style is now international.

Sockpuppet 911: << Personally, I thought the whole thing had a distinctive Hollywood design >>

Yes, it reminds me of Looney Tunes.

CJ Moron,

Perhaps you would care to share your sick idea of a joke with US Army reservist and 9/11 first responder David Miller, now dying as a result of having ingested asbestos, PVC, mercury, etc, mixed in with the concrete pulverised by explosives planted and/or primed in the twin towers on the weekend before Tuesday 11 September 2001 (listen to IT worker Scott Forbes and others who worked in the towers on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8).

At the end of a YouTube broadcast at http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/moore_911_could_be_inside_job.htm David Miller spoke:

"It's only been 5 years - 5 years of our family members watching us
drop dead - and every time Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)
calls the people of this movement 'nuts', these propagandists,
professional liars and tools, who cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be considered journalists, strike another nail into the
coffin of a rescue worker, and every time Time magazine dismisses
real hard physical evidence that a new investigation needs to be
launched into how concrete was pulverised - every time Time magazine
dismisses that evidence and instead writes a two page article about
the psychology of the conspiracy movement, they perpetuate this
build-up of people in very, very coordinated efforts to try to take
this movement apart. We, who are still dying from 9/11, who went to
those towers and into that pile, who now live with those buildings
in our lungs and our digestive systems and our blood, and if you
allow these scumbags to strip you and this movement of all of its
legitimacy, you condemn the first respondents to death."

... and while you're at it CJM, why don't you explain to him how you find "the sheer elaboration of the paranoia" so fascinating but regard his explanations of the physical evidence as a "tendentious rants" and why don't you tell him that you believe him to be an "aggrieved nobody"?

However, if you find that you don't have the courage of your convictions, CJM, then why not, instead, crawl back into the hole from whence you came and leave the rest of us in peace?

Nobody likes being called a nutbag, especially when you are.

Hey, being a "first responder" gives ones views no more legitimacy than say, being a failed political candidate or online ranter. All sorts of people can get angry, and everyone is legitimately angry. However some are not legitimately angry at the right people for the right things. It is one thing to be angry at the Bush administration for being politically opportunist in invading Iraq, it is quite another to accuse them of engineering the original attack to do so.

I will call you a nutbag, because denying the truth in favour of some fantasyland pipedream makes me angry at the complete disrespect you show for the victims, the agencies and agents charged with obtaining the truth and protecting us. CJ Morgan is quite correct in thinking that you are in total denial of reality and recruiting the words of other nutters that happened to be on the scene does nothing for the credibility of your argument.

I suggest you take your own advice James.

(Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.)

Bugsy,

Actually, I consider it a complement to be labelled a 'nutbag' by the likes of yourself and CJM. All the same, personal attacks are no substitute for discussing the evidence.

Obviously, being a 9/11 first responder, even if one is dying as a result, does not give one unchallenged authority, but I would at least suggest to you that if you had any streak of decency or compassion within you, you would at least make the effort to demonstrate comprehension of the case David Miller is trying to put before implicitly pronouncing him a 'nutter'.

Do you also hold that Colonel Robert Bowman or William Christisen, mentioned above, are nutters? Or all those others referred to in the article linked to by Sympneology at http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html?

Do you happen to also label all the people listed in that article as 'nutbags'? And the 503 qualified architects and engineers who endorse http://ae911truth.org ? Do you also consider the 51% of the US public who want congress to question Cheney and Bush over the 9/11 attacks to be 'nubags'? or perhaps just the 30% who want Bush and Cheney to be immediately impeached (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070906103632686)?

So, have you yet listened to the debate between Michael Gage and 'skeptical' proponent of the US government Conspiracy theory Michael Shermer at http://www.noliesradio.org ?

If you had listened you would have noticed that Shermer managed to avoid discussing much of Gage's evidence by claiming that Osama bin Laden's supposed confession made such discussion unnecessary.

Funny how the 9/11 attacks are not listed amongst the crimes of which bin Laden has been accused. Why don't you check it out for yourself, Bugsy, at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm ?

Now, why do you think that is, Bugsy?

If you listen to the presentation on 9/11 coincidences at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5236492071990669218 you will learn that the FBI doesn't consider that it it has enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with this crime.

Yes, James, insults are complements, black is white, up is down, and the American Government is responsible for 9/11.

That bit about you not being able to control your own sockpuppets was spooky though. Multiple personality disorder is a very scary situation.

I think I had better stop now, as I will probably end up being accused of mocking someone with a mental illness. I think a media student from QUT tried that recently, not a good look.

Indeed, Bugsy. Truly bizarre - pathological MPD does seem to fit.

Best treat the poor chap/s gently, I think.

OK, I will take being called a 'nutbag' as an insult, if it makes you feel better, Bugsy.

Thanks for having responded to all of my all arguments.

Congratulations Mad Dog. You've manipulated yet another thread into a vaudeville show with reams of stupefying swill - totally irrelevant to the topic - bravo Morgan!

From 23 September to 11 October you've constantly dribbled your way through a bucket load of invective! If you believe you are divinely guided in all matters known to man, why not at least debate analogically or deductively?

Or at least keep both hands on the keyboard, in consideration of other posters - please!

Apologies on my part, Dickie, for having allowed people, whose motives for participation in this discussion are plainly disingenuous, to have gotten to me in the way they obviously have.

I will try to make up for this by publishing a summary of only the useful parts of this discussion on the web site http://candobetter.org/911truth

dickie: << You've manipulated yet another thread into a vaudeville show... >>

It was already a freak show - I just added some sanity and humour.

I note that the mad dog in our midst has ignored yet another request to enlighten the rest of us as to how he just happens to know that people such as Colonel Robert Bowman and William Christisen are wrong.

Has anyone else other than myself made a complaint to the moderator? What else does it take to rid these forums of the presence of people who clearly have no desire to contribute to these discussions and who have no respect for the wishes of others?

James Sinnamon: << (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>

James, we're still waiting for you to "enlighten the rest of us" as to how your 'cacofonix' sockpuppet apparently escaped your control the other night. I know - the CIA hacked into your account and posted some idiotic comments to further diminish any credibility you might still retain. Or is there a more subjective explanation?

It's your pathology James, not mine.

CJM wrote: "James, we're still waiting for you to "enlighten the rest of us" as to how your 'cacofonix' sockpuppet apparently escaped your control the other night...."

Could you please enlighten the rest of us as to how that is relevant to the topic at hand?

daggett "Relevance", like "intelligence" is a word which have no meaning or substance when considering the ravings of CJ Moron.

He is like a nasty case of tinea,

you think he's gone away but just overnight, you find him, once again, lurking down there, between the toes.

There's some most interesting YouTube resources from Canadian Journalist Barry Zwicker on the net.

He challenges left gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky whom he had previously respected to take a stance against the cover-up of evidence of US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Incredibly Chomsky, previously a harsh critic of US foreign policy stated on a YouTube broadcast at http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrination/noam-chomsky-and-the-gatekeepers-of-the-left/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM “it doesn’t have any significance” if it was indeed the Bush administration that planned the 9/11 attacks.

Barry Zwicker had previously been a great admirer of Chomsky and a proponent of his ideas. In a YouTube broadcast at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU he describes the confusion that Chomsky's denial of the evidence of a cover-up had caused himself. He considers the role of people like Chomsky to have been very harmful to democracy in North America.

Interestingly, in correspondence with Kim Bax an Australian supporter of the 9/11 truth movement, Phillip Adams used Chomsky's authority to justify his view that the views of the 9/11 Truth movement were 'utter nonsense', 'bul**i*t' and 'nuts'. (See
http://www.kimspages.org/phillipadams.htm)

It would be interesting to know if Phillip Adams agrees with Chomsky's view if that what they were to accept as incontrovertible proof of the US Government's complicity in these attacks were to emerge, that it would be of "no consequence". (Indeed I have e-mailed Phillip Adams to put that very question to him.)

Does anyone else here happen to agree with Chomsky that it is of no consequence whether of not the Bush administration was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

I suspect that an examination of the role played by such left gate-keepers might go some way towards explaining why those in this country demanding a proper investigation of the 9/11 attacks (see http://www.911oz.com) have, at least up until now, been marginalised. (See also "Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational" of 6 May 05 by Jack Straw at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STR505A.html

James, since it was you who wrote

<< (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>

surely it is relevant to the thread you started. Also, you implied that you'd explain how this strange turn of events came to pass. I hypothesised that the CIA had hacked your "cacofonix" sock puppet account, so that would be relevant to a thread that attempts to implicate that agency in the 9/11 terrorist attack if it was true, wouldn't it?

Personally, I'm with Phillip Adams in his characterisation of the 9/11 Truth nutters. That page of Kim Bax's is very revealing of the degree of obsession that some poor fools suffer in relation to this frootloop conspiracy theory. I'm sure Adams is used to receiving unsolicited emails from any number of nutbags, and his response to Kim Bax seems pretty mild to me.

As for Chomsky, I have no intention wasting bandwidth to watch a YouTube video in order to validate your crackpot ideas. Give it a rest - get help.

9/11 'truth' is like the "Oklahoma City Bombing truth" nutters....

No matter how much fact is placed before them..they can still become polemical Lazarus's and rise up again sprouting the same rubbish.

OKLAHOMA claims "Because the explosion was not symetrical extra explosive MUST have been used on some structural pylons"
Even a General, a defense expert on ordinance was adamant that it HAD to be extra explosives.

OKLAHOMA TRUTH.. Tests were conducted to simulate the force of the truck bomb and analyse the way the structure collapsed.
Long story short, independant laboratories completely vindicated the official version...and showed what a pack of loonies these so called truth seekers are.

Now..that's the point where Polemical Lazarus get's another life and they start whispering about "Men in black who intimidate the indepenant labs" :)

Bottom line..if u want to believe something.. forget about the facts, you want consider them anyway.

Have fun :)

CJ Moron wrote, "I hypothesised that the CIA had hacked your "cacofonix" sock puppet account, so that would be relevant to a thread that attempts to implicate that agency in the 9/11 terrorist attack if it was true, wouldn't it?"

Yes, CJ Moron, if it was true that the CIA had hacked my "'cacofonix' sock puppet account" then I guess that it would be relevant, however that is not what happened, so it is not relevant.

James Sinnamon: << if it was true that the CIA had hacked my "'cacofonix' sock puppet account" then I guess that it would be relevant, however that is not what happened, so it is not relevant >>

They didn't organise the 9/11 attacks either, but that doesn't you from babbling on about it.

So if it wasn't the CIA who took over your sock puppet, who was it? You seem pretty definite that it wasn't the CIA.

Can you prove this?

CJ Moron wrote, "So if it wasn't the CIA who took over your sock puppet, who was it?"

If it wasn't the CIA, then (I ask again) what relevance does it have to the topic at hand?

CJ Moron wrote, "They didn't organise the 9/11 attacks either, ..."

CJ Moron, do you also happen to believe that the CIA didn't organise coups in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, Zaire, Indonesia, Chile and hadn't interfered in most other countries across the globe, including Australia?

Anyway, If you had been paying attention, you would know that I hadn't named the CIA, because I don't pretend to know for certain which US Government agencies were responsible.

(Funny how CJ Moron demands answers of everyone else, no matter how irrelevant to the topic at hand his questions are, but adamantly refuses to answer questions put to him by others.)

CJ Moron continued, "... but that doesn't you from babbling on about it."

Well, I thought it was our right to "babble" on an OLO forum about whatever we chose to "babble" about that is relevant to the topic at hand.

It would appear that CJ Moron has, from the outset, decided that we don't have that right and that he is entitled to do whatever it takes to prevent others from holding that discussion.

It would seem that CJM would allow us to discuss ib these forums, are CJM's judgements of anyone who disagrees with him as being "patholog(ical)," "paranoid", "frootloops", etc.

CJ Moron wrote "... I have no intention wasting bandwidth to watch a YouTube video ..."

Why am I not surprised?

It's plain to everyone here that CJM has not bothered to view any of the evidence, written or video, made available by the 9/11 Truth movement.

Yes, Col Rouge, I had on a few past occasions caught bad cases of tinea, but never as bad as this.

I would appreciate it if others would also prevail upon the moderator to rid this forum and, hopefully OLO altogether, of this particularly virulent case.

I would be most interested if others could tell me why the moderator can't see why someone who shows absolutely no regard for the wishes of others and who has contributed nothing of substance to the the discussion at hand other than personal abuse should be be allowed to continue to use an OLO account.

---

Polycarp, I fail to see the relevance of what you have written about the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995 to the topic at hand.

To many your religious views would seem rather odd, to put it mildly, so if I were you, I would be very careful before I started referring to others with whom you disagree as a "pack of loonies".

Correction to the 4th last paragraph of 2nd previous post:

It would seem that [all] CJM would allow us to discuss in these forums, are CJM's judgements of anyone who disagrees with him as being "patholog(ical)," "paranoid", "frootloops", etc.

As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I had been unaware of the destruction of the building WTC 7 until this discussion occurred. I was also only vaguely aware of the existence of some contention as to the accuracy or completeness of official explanations relating to the destruction of the WTC in what the world saw on its TV screens. I guess I felt that the visual record was sufficient explanation.

This contention takes me back to 1980 and the Chamberlain case.

It is now a matter of record that a massive miscarriage of justice occurred in respect of the convictions recorded against Lindy and Michael Chamberlain. What is significant is that it was only an amorphous gradually accreting body of public concern as to the safety of the convictions that provided any impetus to what, as it turned out, needed to be a sustained appeal and review process.

Given that the matter proceeded to indictment, what did stagger me was the apparent official determination to proceed in the seeming absence of all the factors typically necessary for the obtaining of a conviction: no body, no opportunity, no motive, no believable weapon, no witnesses pointing toward guilt; whilst concomitantly seemingly refusing to address in a thorough and imaginative way the claim of the only witness to the event. My concern was not as to pretending the utter impossibility of guilt of those charged, it was as to the safety of the verdicts, and from everything I ever subsequently read as to the evidence and the proceedings, all I can say is that had I been a juror 'reasonable doubt' would have existed in my mind until the cows came home.

I see parallels between the seemingly compulsive need to brand any persons mentioning apparent inconsistencies in the official findings re 9/11 as 'fruitloops', 'conspiracy theorists', 'nutters', etc, and the seeming official determination, in the face of the available evidence concerning the dissappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, to force a miscarriage of justice.

If the 9/11 concerns are rubbish, the supporting evidence will soon reveal its quality through discussion.

For those who are interested in the sociopsychological phenomenon of 'conspiracy theories' per se, I think that this is a well-balanced introduction to the subject:

<< http://people.howstuffworks.com/conspiracy-theory.htm >>

People can assess for themselves where James and his sock puppets would fit in that general description.

If CJ Moron is so fascinated by the "the sociopsychological phenomenon of 'conspiracy theories' per se", then why doesn't he offer us some of his own theories of this phenomenon, preferably on another forum?

I would suggest to CJ Moron that if he were to choose to do so then perhaps there may need to be more substance to his theories then simply labelling the objects of his 'investigation' as 'patholog(ical)', 'paranoid', 'frootloops', 'nutbags', etc.

Perhaps he could also tell us what he learnt from that scholarly work that he commended so highly to the rest of us that we didn't already know.

Now James, I think your continual references me to me as a "moron" constitute flaming. I've called you no such names.

You appear to be angry that I don't take your crackpot ideas about the supposed 9/11 conspiracy seriously, and you obviously resent my effort to locate these ideas within a well-established milieu about which much has been written from a social psychological perspective.

I think that I'm at least as entitled to identify what appears to be a classic example of a populist conspiracy theory as you are to rehash crackpot theories that have been rejected by virtually every serious commentator and analyst, including those from the Left. You don't like that, but so what?

Also, we're still waiting for you to explain why you posted this

<< (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>

as you promised. If it wasn't the CIA, who was it? And more to the point, how do you know?

CJ Moron,

I have explained earlier why I believe that referring to someone who is behaving as a moron, as a moron, does not constitute flaming. I am happy to put that argument to the moderator should he/she raise this with me.

As I wrote, if you want to begin a serious discussion about conspiracy theories "from a social psychological perspective" then why not do so?

However, this is a forum to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence for complicity of the US Government in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US and not a forum to examine the psychology of those of us who question the US Government's explanation.

---

CJ Moron wrote, "(alternative 9/11 conspiracies) have been rejected by virtually every serious commentator and analyst ..."

So could you tell the rest of us why you don't consider Colonel Robert Bowman, William Christisen and all those listed in the article at http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html as as "serious commentators"? Could you tell me why you choose to disregard the testimony of William Rodriguez (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1219050.interview_the_untold_story_of_september_11/), who risked his life defying firemen's orders to leave the building, and was subsequently decorated by George Bush himself?

---

The authority of Noam Chomsky, is one which is cited by Australian 9/11 deniers such as Phillip Adams as I have shown above.

What sort of credibility does a man who has stated openly that even if what he were to accept as evidence of US Government complicity in the 9/11 attacks were to emerge, "it doesn't have any significance" (http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrination/noam-chomsky-and-the-gatekeepers-of-the-left/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU)?

I ask again, CJ Moron, do you agree with Noam Chomsky that "it doesn't have any significance"?

It's a simple enough question to answer, I would have thought. If you disagree with Chomsky, then please explain to the rest of us why you still consider Chomsky a "serious commentator and analyst".

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Chomsky also pronounced that it was of no consequence it it were to be found that Lee Harvey Oswald did not murder President Kennedy on his own and, besides, sees nothing suspicious about the way Oswald himself was murdered so shortly after. Chomsky has also declared proper investigations into the murders of other US political figures of the 1960's to be unwarranted. In the early 1990's he carried out a largely successful disinformation campaign to discredit Oliver Stone's meticulously produced "JFK" which Phillip Adams passed on to his believing listeners, including myself, uncritically.

As Barrie Zwicker explains in a 45 minute interview at http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/sacred-cow-noam-chomsky-gored-by-barry.html whilst Chomsky has produced tomes of works which are ostensibly critical of US foreign policy, he has, by aiding cover-ups of the assassinations of JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and now the 9/11 attacks, acted as if he was a paid US Government agent for all of those years, whether or not he actually was.

Barrie Zwicker describes Chomsky's technique as "bait and switch". The "bait" is eloquent writing against crimes commented by the US government often years after the events are of any great immediate consequence. The "switch" are the other ideas espoused by Chomsky, which serve the interests of the US oligarchy, which those who hold Chomsky in high regard feel bound to accept.

---

CJ Moron, I stated that the person who made those two posts to OLO using the account 'cacofonix' was neither myself nor cacofonix as a courtesy to others who might have otherwise found the posts confusing.

CJ Moron, please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that everyone who posts to OLO is entitled to anonymity, so what possible business is it of yours and what possible relevance does it have to the subject at hand?

James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix: << this is a forum to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence for complicity of the US Government in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US and not a forum to examine the psychology of those of us who question the US Government's explanation >>

Says who?

<< I stated that the person who made those two posts to OLO using the account 'cacofonix' was neither myself nor cacofonix as a courtesy to others who might have otherwise found the posts confusing. >>

Like I said before, how do you know? You appear to be having something of an identity crisis on top of everything else, poor chap.

As I also said before, get help.

I note that CJ Moron has not uttered a word in defence of Noam Chomsky.

Presumably, at least CJ Moron now agrees with me that Chomsky is not a "serious commentator and analyst ... from the Left".

It would be interesting to see if CJ Moron is able to name any other "serious commentator and analyst ... from the Left" who, like him, unquestioningly accepts the official US Government explanation of the 9/11 attacks.

---

CJ Moron wrote, "Says who?".

CJ Moron, do you or don't you agree that we should stick to the topic at hand?

The topic, as I understand it is "9/11 Truth". I thought that that made it pretty clear the purpose of this discussion.

CJ Moron wrote: "Like I said before, how do you know?"

As I already wrote:

"CJ Moron, please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is
that everyone who posts to OLO is entitled to anonymity, so what
possible business is it of yours and what possible relevance does it
have to the subject at hand?"

CJ Moron wrote, "As I also said before, get help."

Since you claim to be so knowledgeable of psychology, why don't you offer your help?

---

BTW, as I have now seemingly been transformed by CJ Moron into an object of his pity, rather than someone seeking to perpetrate fraud and deceit on an unwitting audience of OLO visitors, I wonder if this means that his objection to being referred to as "CJ Moron" no longer stands?

I agree that there's more to the 9/11 attacks than Al Qaeda. For me, the most interesting co-event was the van full of Mossad boys filming the twin towers as the planes came in - as reported by that well-known stronghold of left-wing conspiracy nuts, the New York Police Department.

That said, daggett, by writing "CJ Moron" in every line you're making yourself look like a tragic and hopeless basket case and a debater of no merit whatsoever.

Sancho "That said, daggett, by writing "CJ Moron" in every line you're making yourself look like a tragic and hopeless basket case and a debater of no merit whatsoever."

I disagree, as I recently pointed out to CJ Moron himself, he is giving morons a bad name.

Sancho: << ...by writing "CJ Moron" in every line you're making yourself look like a tragic and hopeless basket case and a debater of no merit whatsoever >>

Indeed, and I'd suggest that the same principle applies to Col Rouge, who seems lately to be allying himself increasingly with the OLO frootloop fraternity - if only to spit some bile.

Sancho - undoubtedly there's more to the story than the 'official' line, but of course that doesn't mean the 9/11 Truth nutters actually have a case.

Sancho

Why do you see the splinter in Daggett's eye but fail to see the plank in the eye of the Moron?

So Sancho pray tell, which description in the Moron's limited vocabulary would most appeal to you?:

"Fruitloop, wingnut, freak show, nutbags, liar, Humpty Dumpty, bull sh**t artist, looney tunes."

Feel free to add to the Moron's list. His repetitive and moronic hyperbole has grown rather tedious!

Err.....just a reminder Sancho if you intend responding. Unlike the Moron, could you endeavour to stay on topic.....there's a good fella!

Sancho,

I'm most interested in your point about the Mossad agents. Were they wearing ID badges that said SECRET AGENT? Or can a New York cop spot a "kike" at 30 paces?

Paul, I found a version of the Mossad story at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17260.htm

I saw similar elsewhere but this was the most detailed I found in a quick scan. If anything it backs much of the official line on the attacks.

R0bert

The 9/11 Truthers might be on to something after all:

<< New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory.

'World Trade Center', which stars Nicolas Cage as a dedicated Port Authority officer who stumbles on secret evidence amid the rubble and carnage of the terrorist attack, tells a story quite different from what Stone called "the official government line" about the event. According to the film, at 8:46 a.m., a lone commercial airliner flew diagonally through the North Tower of the World Trade Center, maintained a circular holding pattern for approximately 17 minutes, then struck the South Tower before heading to the Pentagon.

After its collision with the center of American military operations, the so-called "magic plane"—which variously and ingeniously identified itself to air-traffic controllers as "American Airlines Flight 11," "United Airlines Flight 175," "American Airlines Flight 77" and "United Airlines Flight 93"—took to the skies once again, landing at a top-secret "black-ops" Air Force base in West Virginia, where it was reloaded with a group of clones from another shadowy government program that Stone described as "shocking."

Stone, who said he did not have time to explore the clone angle in the three-and-a-half-hour film, plans to do so in the sequel, 'September 12'. >>

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_oliver_stone_9_11_film

On the other hand, Al Qaeda aren't happy:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories

dickie: << Fruitloop, wingnut, freak show, nutbags, liar, Humpty Dumpty, bull sh**t artist, looney tunes >>

You must be feeling right at home then. And how exactly did your comment fit James' very strict parameters for discussion?

"And how exactly did your comment fit James' very strict parameters for discussion?" (CJ)

Rather than ambushing someone else's thread CJ, why not analyse what is being said by other posters? Had you taken your hand off it for a brief second, you would have noticed that I had excused myself from debate:

"Thank you for an interesting thread Daggett.

"I'm not sufficiently researched to make much comment," (Dickie Sunday, 5 October 2008)

Nevertheless, I remained interested in reading the theories of others but alas I have been force-fed a dunny-truck load of unprovoked, hate-based invectives, passed off as factual, which leads me to an accurate conclusion on your reasons for "engaging" in this debate!

I would have thought that Oliver Stone's "single plane" theory would have made perfect sense to a "magic bullet" believer such as CJM.

dickie: << a dunny-truck load of unprovoked, hate-based invectives, passed off as factual >>

Actually, that's a pretty good description of most of James' posts to this silly thread, not to mention what one reads on the various "9/11 Truth" frootloop sites. You should check some of them out - they're quite scary.

On the other hand, you might feel right at home there too.

It's hard to know what to make of Christopher Ketcham's article about Mossad agents at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17260.htm

It implicitly the huge mountains of evidence pointing to prior knowledge of the impending attacks by the US Government, but makes a big deal of evidence pointing to Mossad's prior knowledge of the attacks.

The article appeared originally (http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham03072007.html) on the site of ostensible leftist Alexander Cockburn, who, together with Noam Chomsky, disgracefully smeared Oliver Stone in 1992 (see "Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation" at http://192.220.64.45/media/cockburn.htm) and who continues to smear the 9/11 Truth Movement (see "Debunking the Myths of 9/11" at http://www.counterpunch.org/ninelevenconsp11252006.html "How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Slip Off the Hook -The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts" at http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09252006.html)

One possible explanation for the article is that it may be a fall back position for 'left' 9/11 deniers who may feel a need to erect a facade of critical-mindedness towards of the US Government in order to revive their dwindling credibility.

The sentence in the second paragraph should have been:

"It implicitly [denies] the huge mountains of evidence pointing to prior knowledge of the impending attacks by the US Government, but makes a big deal of evidence pointing to Mossad's prior knowledge of the attacks."

An excellent rebuttal to Alexander Cockburn's abovementioned smear of 9/11 Truth activists is

"Into the Ring with Counterpunch on 9/11: How Alexander Cockburn, Otherwise So Bright, Blanks Out on 9/11 Evidence"

of 16 Dec 2006 at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20061206104001101

This article includes a quote from the abovementioned Colonel Robert Bowman. I will include a part of it here:

"As a combat veteran, I will not stand idly by and watch our
security destroyed by a president who went AWOL rather than
serve in Vietnam. As one who's devoted his life to the security
of this country, I will not stand by and watch an appointed
president send our sons and daughters around the world to kill
Arabs for the oil companies. [".] I joined the air force a long
time ago to protect our borders and our people, not the
financial interests of Folgers, Chiquita Banana, Exxon,
and Halliburton. We've had enough corporate wars! No more Iraqs,
no more Kosovos, no more El Salvadors, no more Colombias! These
are not isolated incidents of stupidity; they're part of a long,
bloody history of foreign policy being conducted for the financial
interests of the wealthy few. [".]

"As a pilot who flew a hundred and one combat missions in Vietnam,
I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic—and that includes a renegade
president! It's time for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and the whole oil mafia to be removed
from office and indicted for treason."

I think the quote above from Bowman is a good example of a "tendentious rant from an aggrieved nobody". So he's a former combat pilot who's belatedly realised that he was little more than a hired gun for the world's most powerful thugs - how does this prove anything other than that he has an axe to grind?

Finally, after 27 posts, a response that actually acknowledges the content of my own posts.

I think CJM should take a bow.

It seems that he is not quite as stupid as he usually seems (just as even George W Bush, himself, has been known to display signs of intelligence from time to time).

CJM wrote, "So he's a former combat pilot who's belatedly realised that he was little more than a hired gun ..."

Bravo, CJM!

I read here the stirring words of a militant and fierce opponent of Bush's New World Order.

I am sure that Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn, who would also dismiss Bowman's demands for a proper investigation into the September 11 attacks, whilst also telling the world that there was nothing suspicious about the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X and that the 2000 elections were not stolen by George Bush, could learn a thing or two from you.

So, CJM, can I take it that that is your complete response to my above query:

"Could ... you tell the rest of us why you don't consider Colonel Robert Bowman, William
Christisen and all those listed in the article at http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html
as as "serious commentators"? Could you tell me why you choose to disregard the
testimony of William Rodriguez
(http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1219050.interview_the_untold_story_of_september_11/),
who risked his life defying firemen's orders to leave the building, and was subsequently
decorated by George Bush himself?"

?

Also, again: Are you prepared to name any of the other "serious commentator and analyst(s)" of the left who, like you, unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war?

Also, again: Do you agree with Noam Chomsky that even if evidence that would satisfy him of the guilt of the Bush administration were to emerge, that it wouldn't "have any significance" (http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrination/noam-chomsky-and-the-gatekeepers-of-the-left/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU)?

James Sinnamon: << can I take it that that is your complete response to my above query >>

Yes.

<< like you, unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war >>

I've never said that I "unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war". Rather, I don't accept the crackpot conspiracy theories of those like you who claim that the US Government orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks against its own people.

Dagget,

Can't you see that there is no way of proving to those who deny the official version of 9/11, that it is true and accurate.

Can you not see that there are people who belive in UFO's and no matter what others say, will not be disuaded.

Some people believe in fairies, others believe in ghosts, and billions believe in a supernatural being who created the earth and the heavens.

Don't you ask yourself, what could THEY possibly have to gain. And given the few answers to this, wasn't there far easier, safer and more effective ways to achieve those aims?

Noam Chomsky is a loony lefter from way back. He never had any real credibility in the first place. His opinions on 9/11 are irrelvant.

Clearly it would make a very big differnce if the US gov't carried out the attacks. But don't let the fact that they didn't, get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

You seem to have a penchant for these conspiracy theories. Seems everyone is out to get you Dagget.

Have you heard of Occams Razor Dagget? I suggest you look it up if you haven't because it seems to be a tool you don't have. The ability to look at something and immediately jump to the most convoluted, complicated and far fetched explanations is not a skill or ability, it is an affliction.

I notice none of the conspiracy theorists responded to my question about whether the MOSSAD agents were wearing their SECRET AGENT badges?

Where is the healthy skepticism that all analysts should have. The conspiray guys seem to believe any half baked "evidence" presented by their one of their own.

Paul.L,

In fact, as I have shown, Noam Chomsky's authority has been effectively used by people like Phillip Adams to discredit people such as, for example, those trying to make known the truth about the assassination of JFK and who, who unlike Chomsky, do pose a threat to the US oligarchy (again, see "Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation" at http://192.220.64.45/media/cockburn.htm). The fact that he has been known to talk frequently like a 'looney lefter' --- as do some contributors to OLO --- should not fool anybody.

The question about what they could have gained has been answered over and over and over again. On the The New American Century web site they state:

"Further, the 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." (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

You asked earlier: Why they didn't simply pull another "Bay of Tonkin" style stunt? I think to ask the question, practically answers it: Most people would have seen through it immediately. (At least you seem to be further conceding that the justification for the Vietnam war was a lie (some discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121&page=0). So some progress seems to be being made, here.)

In order to be able to shock US and world public opinion into meek acceptance of their plans, something far more dramatic and more terrible was needed.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

(And I have to say that it sure fooled me. Sad to say, I cheered on the US when it invaded Afghanistan and was almost convinced to support the invasion of Iraq. For years, I believed that David Hicks and the other Guantanamo Bay internees had largely brought the situation upon themselves, little realising that it was, in fact, Bush, Cheny, Rice and Rumsfeld that deserved to be incarcerated there.)

---

I believe I well understand the principle of Occam's Razor.

Now how about showing me an explanation of the sudden and complete collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 which is simpler than the controlled demolition theory? (And please don't give me links to arcane wordy technical pdf documents. If the explanation is that simple, then it should be possible for someone to render it graphically in ways that we can easily understood.)

---

I need to make it clear that I opposed the war in which Colonel Robert Bowman fought as a pilot as I have said often on OLO and even thinking about the harm he would have inflicted upon fellow human beings who would have otherwise bore him no malice in his 101 combat missions is a terrible thing for me to contemplate.

Whilst Bush's own motive for dodging that conflict appear to have been a combination of laziness and his wish not to have his easy and privileged life disrupted by a tour of duty in Vietnam, I would hope that Bowman would not condemn others who, unlike Bush, refused to fight because of principled opposition to that war.

It seems likely to me that Bowman's motives for having served in that conflict, although misguided, would have been honourable.

For being prepared to stand up and oppose that war machine being used to inflict further bloodshed and destruction shows immense moral courage on Colonel Bowman's part, even if CJM seems incapable of understanding that.

Dagget,

you ask for a more simple explanation. How about what actually happened. WTC1 and 2: Two half million pound aircraft filled with fuel flew into those buildings as 3/4 the speed of sound. Almost as fast as a subsonic bullet. Those buildings were structurally weakened by these events and subsequently collapsed.

WTC was hit by large pieces of rubble from the collapsing towers, and fires burned for most of the day uncontrolled. This wekened this building to the point that it collapsed.

Now lets look at your explantion.

These towers were loaded up with explosives, but no one noticed (ever seen a building wired for demolition?) Then the gov't had some flunkies fly passenger jets into these buildings. They then detonated their explosives to collapse the towers, without allowing fire fighters to evacuate everybody they could.

They then pretended to highjack 93, sent jets after it, then either shot it down or suspiciously called them off (depending upon what denier site you belong to). Then they shot a missile at the pentagon, which looked like a passenger plane that was hijacked.

Foreign gov't agents were in the know about this plot beforehand, but funnily enough no ones come forward with anything but circumstancial evidence. The most massive and succesful conspiracy ever carried out.

And all under the command of that great BOOB George Bush, the lefts favourite dummy. In his daytime job, he can't do anything right, but at night, in his secret cape he can change the world.

I wonder how you think it helps your case that a member of the US military believes the conspiracy theories? The US military is 1,000,000 strong, there are bound to be a few headcases in amongst them.

Paul.L,

I concede that your explanation is simple, but it also needs to be complete.

It needs to take account of the failure of all the supporting structures on every floor of all three buildings, even those which were not touched in any way by the the burning aviation fuel and it needs to explain the near free-fall speed of the collapses, how all of WTC1 and WTC2 were pulverised and how WTC7 fell so cleanly and within its own footprint and how this has never happened before 11 September 2001, and never since .

What nearly every independent engineer and architect expected to have happened was something a lot closer to what we see in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.html or had the towers somehow, against the expectations of the designers, collapsed completely, then something closer to the examples shown at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/collapsecases.html

The only theory which comes remotely close to providing a complete explanation for what we see at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/groundzero.html is the controlled demolition theory.

Paul.L wrote, "These towers were loaded up with explosives, but no one noticed."

In fact, a good many extremely suspicious happenings were noticed prior to and immediately after the 9/11 attacks, including mysterious workmen with large cases coming into the Twin Towers on the weekend of 8 and 9 September prior to Tuesday 11 September.

I suggest, again, you check out the testimony of decorated 9/11 hero and last person out of the twin towers William Rodriguez and at http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1219050.interview_the_untold_story_of_september_11/ and the testimony of Scott Forbes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8

Also, it has been shown again and again that the supporting structures of WTC1 and WTC2 were capable of absorbing the impact of a 767 and still be capable of bearing the weight of the building. The designer of the towers had considered the possibility of a 707 aircraft, which is roughly comparable to a 767, crashing into one of the towers and had concluded that they would be capable of withstanding that impact (see http://911sig.blogspot.com/2007/01/nist-boeing-707-travelling-at-600-mph.html).

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Paul.L wrote: "I wonder how you think it helps your case that a member of the US military believes the conspiracy theories? ..."

Where did I ever claim that the whole case of the 9/11 Truth movement rested on the authority of Colonel Robert Bowman alone?

My point was that many credible people, both military and civilian, and not just Colonel Robert Bowman, reject the official explanation for 9/11. I made that point because a number of people, including Phillip Adams and at least one poster to the forum, have attempted to avoid discussing the evidence by claiming that the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement have been rejected by all credible commentators and analysts.

As I have already asked several times here, please explain to us why you don't think Colonel Bowman and all those others listed at http://www.911truthgroups.org/911Truth101/Step2ProminentSupporters/tabid/633/Default.aspx http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html are credible people?

If we agree that a good many credible people do support the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement, then the evidence of the 9/11 Truth movement should be at least discussed and not dismissed out of hand.

---

CJM, I meant to write that you:

"unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks."

... and not that you:

"unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war."

As you have not questioned the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks anywhere in this forum, then I would consider the first of the above two statements to be accurate.

In regard to the latter, I have no way of knowing whether or not it is true. However, if it was, I certainly I never heard a peep out of you in the forum "Winning the War in Iraq" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#45868

---

Paul.L (earlier) wote, "Iraq had WMD even if they did not have them at the time of the invasion."

This totally specious justification for the invasion has been comprehensively refuted in the abovementioned forum "Winning the War in Iraq" and many other places.

Daggett,

Firstly, once the buildings started to fall, there was no stopping them. So we don’t need complicated explanations about why floors that were not burned failed. They failed because 30 then 31, then 32 etc stories smashed into them after accelerating for 3-4m at 9.8m/s/s.

You keep saying the buildings were pulverised, have you ever seen a building collapse before? How do you know it doesn’t look exactly like the WTC1, 2 and 7.

Demolition of buildings by explosives doesn’t pulverise the building either, they seek to bring it down in a controlled manner in manageable pieces. Explosives sever the supports and gravity brings down the building. See here for an explanation on pulverised concrete. http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144446004

>> “Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:
J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm
WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_World_Trade_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_World_Trade_Center
So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder. The Hudson Building “ … took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip “

The free fall stuff is a lie. No one has an accurate idea of exactly how long the building took to collapse, but here are pictures of rubble falling through the air, ahead of the collapsing floors. Ergo, the building must be falling slower than freefall. http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

The “never before in history” nonsense ignores completely the unique construction of the building. No ‘tube in tube’ building over 40 stories has ever been damaged like the WTC. NONE. The reason the building fell mostly within its footprint is intimately related to the construction of the building.

Tell me dagget, why the gov’t would try and ensure the building did fall within its footprint?

TBC

Cont,

It would have been far easier to demolish the buildings without it looking staged. One of the MOST difficult aspects for demolition experts’ bringing down a building isn’t making sure it collapses. It’s making sure it collapses in a controlled manner. If all they needed to do was demolish the building they could use far less explosives and less expensive time delay hardware. What interest would a gov’t prepared to sacrifice thousands of people have in ensuring a controlled demolition? Have a look at the video on this page. http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

Against my better judgement I checked out the story of William Rodriguez, an ex-magician, exposer of faith healers and currently on a highly lucrative world speaking tour. Rodriguez doesn’t understand how people on the ground floor could be burned when the plane crashed 80 stories up. I wonder if anybody ever told him that jet fuel, like everything else, obeys the laws of gravity. Burning jet fuel poured into the elevator shafts and exploded out of anywhere open, including on the ground floor lobby. He has NO evidence of ANYTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.

The 9/11 truth movement are forever moving the goalposts. At one stage they believed that the planes which flew into the WTC1 and 2 were not passenger planes at all. They argued that it was a missile that hit the pentagon. They said that flight 93 was shot down. And there are a hundred other claims, none of which stack up.

I also had a look at the 911 special interest group site. The theoretical tests, based upon a 707 (which is a smaller, slower aircraft) flying into the twin towers, neglected entirely, the consequences of a full load of aviation fuel dumped inside the building. That fuel or more specifically the fires it started, was an essential component of the collapse of WTC1 and 2 http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

No one claimed that the impact alone caused the collapse. Funnily enough, on the picture on this site you can see debris falling, and it has clearly travelled faster than the collapsing floors.

Paul.L wrote, "Firstly, once the buildings started to fall, there was no stopping them. ..."

This is neither an explanation of why the buildings fell in the first place nor why, once they had started to fall, the collapse had to be complete instead of partial and had to occur close to (and no-one claimed at, Paul.L) the speed of a free fall as attested to by incontrovertible video evidence in the case of WTC7 and at least the estimates of eyewitnesses in the case of WTC1 and WTC2.

Paul.L asked, "... have you ever seen a building collapse before?"

Why don't you show me a single building collapse anywhere that was not a controlled demolition and which looks anything like WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7?

(From here on, the arguments just get plain silly.)

Paul.L, why don't you take your own advice and apply some "healthy skepticism" to these insane theories you have presented here, whether they have been concocted by yourself or borrowed from someone else?

Just ask youself: If, as the US Government insists, the collapses were unplanned, do you think it would have been:

A) more likely; or

B) less likely

... that the collapse would have been so complete and have fallen so neatly into the respective footprints of the three buildings?

Paul.L wrote, "The 'never before in history' nonsense ignores completely the unique construction of the building. ..."

And why do you continue to ignore my point that the construction of WTC7 was entirely conventional?

The various often mutually contradictory attempts to claim that the twin towers were somehow particularly fragile because the construction was different is comprehensively demolished at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/explanations.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/meltdown.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/meltdownre.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columns.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columnstemps.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columnscollapse.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trusses.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trusseseagar.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/eagarlies.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesfema.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/whatcores.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/femalies.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/corestruct.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/trussesre.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/implications.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/officialstory.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/outline.html

The justification for the controlled demoltion theory cann be found at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/explanationsre.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/evidence.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/squibs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/smoothwave.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/mushrooming.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/centered.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/dustcloud.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/pulverization.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/shredding.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/hotspots.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/proofs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/aerialdust.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/freefall.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/airtop.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/dustvolume.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/disintegration.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/conclusion.html

The page at which the above presentation commences is "The World Trade Center Demolition
Exposing the fraud of the government's story" at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html

(tobecontinued)

I think my initial comment that poor old James seems obsessed by this "9/11 Truth" crap was pretty apposite, after wading through a couple of the URL's that constitute the major part of what he considers to be evidence for his conspiracy theories.

<< ...apply some "healthy skepticism" to these insane theories you have presented here, whether they have been concocted by yourself or borrowed from someone else >>

Pot, meet kettle. I don't think it's Paul's arguments that are "insane" here. However, it's nice to see that James has someone who's willing to play with him according to his rules.

I'm going bush for a week or so, so I'll leave you chaps to it. Do have a lovely time.

(continuedfromabove)

The presentation "NIST's WTC Investigation: Mockery of Science" at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/index.html and the accompanying article "Building a Better Mirage NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century" at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html looks very useful although I haven't had time to look at it myself.

I would ask Paul.L: If a complete and at least equally simple explanation, which shows how the towers could have collapsed as they did without the assistance of explosives, exists, then wouldn't you suppose that it could be rendered as lucidly as the above presentations?

If so, then where do you suppose that that presentation is to be found?

Paul.L wrote, "It would have been far easier to demolish the buildings without it looking staged," and before that, "... why the gov’t would try and ensure the building did fall within its footprint? ..."

Why not use use a little imagination, Paul.L? If explosives had been employed, but the demolition had been less complete, and there had been twisted steel beams and smashed concrete lying everywhere, do you think it woud have been

A) easier, or

B) harder

... to conceal the evidence of the crime?

The video at http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm is a joke.

Paul.L, had you noticed in the simulation of the 'pancake' collapse theory that for the theory to have worked, the central supporting column had to be left behind as the 'pancakes' successively fell faster and faster under the impact weight of the cumulative falling 'pancakes' from above?

Now what do you suppose would have happened to the central column after the collapse? Do you think it would have:

A) stood standing, of

B) buckled and twisted under its own weight and fallen over?

In either case, don't you think some more substantial and more intact remnants of that column would have been found at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/groundzero.html

?

So, where are they?

Daggett,

Do you even hear what you are saying? They brought the building down like a controlled demolition to HIDE the evidence. They made it look like it was planned, to avoid any evidence of it being planned. Don't you understand how insane that is?

Once the collapse had started, with thousands of tons of building smashing onto each floor, it was not going to stop. No partial collapse was going to happen because the weight smashing into the floor below increased every time another floor fell.

I’m glad you finally accepted that the buildings were not falling at freefall speed. I wonder what speed you imagine a building falling under the weight of gravity falls though? How long do you imagine it takes thirty stories of steel and concrete falling 3-4 metres to smash a floor?

I have some pictures for you of these so called pulverised buildings. http://www.ridgewoodcameraclub.org/photo_gallery/WTCdestruction1.jpg
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/images/WTC1&2Taken9-13-2001image118.jpg
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/wtc-rubble.jpg

You ask me whats more likely? Is it more likely that these buildings, two of them 3 times higher than any building ever demolished before, were brought down by chemical or explosives that nobody heard, nobody saw, and of which no traces were left, by people nobody saw. A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name? And both began to collapse at the exact point of impact?

You’re saying that things are getting silly? That really is the pot calling the kettle black.

Its funny, the photograph you posted shows the remnant of the central core, as well as large pieces of the exterior structure. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/groundzero.html

I’m not going any further with this, because there are only so many ways you can explain the truth. And you just don’t want to believe it. It fits neatly with your world view that the US gov’t is the ultimate source of all the world’s problems. It wouldn’t matter what evidence I put before you, you’d prefer to believe the bizarre allegations of a bunch of fruit loops, over peer reviewed science.

You clearly are very easily led. UFO's and ghosts beware. Dagget is on the prowl.

I note that that fine upstanding polemicist, scholar and Queensland Greens Party activist CJ Moron has informed us that he is going to deprive us of his inspired and enlightened presence for a "a week or so".

Let's hope that when he returns he will finally deign to inform the rest of us, how he just happens to know that Colonel Bowman, US Greens Party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader, William Christisen, Gore Vidal, Daniel Ellsberg, etc, etc, etc, etc, are all so wrong about this.

Or would he consider that "play(ing) with (me) according to (my own) rules"?

I ask people to look at http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/stfires.html

We see what looks like fires in both towers which appeared to have dwindled and lacked visible flames moments before collapse.

Here's a transcript of a portion of the radio communication with Chief Oreo Palmer who reached the 78th floor of the South Tower (WTC2):

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#palmer
Battalion 7 Chief: Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-40 Code Ones.
...
Ladder 15: Floor 78?

Battalion 7 Chief: Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.
...
Battalion 7 Chief: I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam, stairway to knock down two fires. We have house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay.

It just defies logic and the imagination that scene in which the firemen present clearly believed that the situation to be well under control could have been turned moments later into http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/explosion.html

... unless there were explosives planted.

I will restate more correctly the last two paragrapsh of the previous post:

It just defies logic and the imagination that that scene, in which the firemen present clearly believed the situation to be well under control, could have been turned moments later into http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/explosion.html

... unless there were explosives planted.

---

Firstly, Paul.L, you seem to have dodged a very simple question. I will ask it again:

If, as the US Government insists, the collapses were unplanned, do you think it would have been:

A) more likely; or

B) less likely

... that the collapse would have been so complete and have fallen so neatly into the respective footprints of the three buildings?

---

Paul.L wrote, "I’m not going any further with this, ..."

Suit yourself. This discussion can continue with or without you.

Paul.L wrote, "Do you even hear what you are saying? ..."

The point I was trying to make seems to have gone right over your head.

Obviously having the buildings collapse in a way the looks like controlled demolition is evidence that suggests that there was a controlled demolition. My point still stands that they needed to do that in order to reduce the likelihood that other, far more incontrovertible evidence of the crime would have subsequently been recovered as investigators would have searched through the twisted mangled steel beams and girders and broken concrete in order to understand how the buildings collapsed.

Also, it seems less likely that such a collapse would have been anywhere near as psychologiclly devastating as the actual collapses which occurred.

So, it makes perfect sense to me that the people who planned the attacks would have demolished the buildings in the way that they did.

(So much more I could add, but I need to call it a night.)

Another discussion on 9/11 can be found in article "16 May 2008,
Unanswered 9/11 questions" of 16 May 2008 at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2240510.htm

Bugsy wrote, "you are ... recruiting the words of other nutters ...".

It's clear that Bugsy was referring, amongst others to 9/11 hero David Miller, who, as I pointed out, was dying of Mesothelioma from having inhaled asbestos, PVC, mercury etc from the twin towers.

Funny how this discussion started because I was accused of being heartless towards the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

I guess it's good in a way that Bugsy is prepared to be so cruelly insulting and dismissive of such a person without having even bothered to demonstrate any understanding of what he had said.

At least it shows up for all to see the moral depravity of many of the 9/11 deniers.

By having judged 9/11 William Rodriguez, whose life expectancy will almost certainly have been dramatically shortened as a result of his heroism Paul.L has acquitted himself little better than Bugsy IMHO.

I haven't posted in this stupid thread for 10 days. Yet it's clear that you want to provoke me into rejoining it. Very well.

It's a bit late for you to take the high moral ground argument now dagget. Your reasoning is clearly faulty, you and your ilk do not want the truth, you want confirmation of the evil that lurks within the US military-industrial complex that planned and coordinated the attacks. You won't find it. It doesn't exist.

Now f@ck off and leave me alone, you raving nutter.

Bugsy wrote, ''... it's clear that you want to provoke me into rejoining it."

That was not my intention. I think my intention was self-evident.

No-one asked you to even read this thread in the first place, let alone engage in the vicious nasty personal attacks that you have, not only upon myself, but upon the victims and heroes of 9/11.

Because you have done so, I believe that I am perfectly entitled to draw the attention of others to that fact so that next time anyone attempts to start a calm and rational discussion on this issue, the likes of yourself and CJM will think twice before behaving in the despicable way that you have.

Bugsy wrote, "Now f@ck off and leave me alone, you raving nutter."

If you want to be left alone, here's my advice:

1. Click on the "Email Alerts" button at the bottom of the page which will take you to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/email-alerts-general.asp?discussion=2166

2. Click on the "Cancel email alerts" button.

Bugsy wrote, "Your reasoning is clearly faulty, you and your ilk do not want the truth ..."

Yeah, right Bugsy.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Now, if you want the truth would you then care to explain to Ellen Mariani, whose husband Louis Mariani was said to have been killed on flight 175 on 11 September 2001, why she is not entitled to answers to the following questions that she asked in an open letter to President Bush in 2004:

http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/emlawsuit.htm

"We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:

"1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?

"2. Where are the 'black boxes' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

"3. Where are the 'voice recorders' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

"4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?

"5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the
doomed flights?

"6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?

"7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman
Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then
put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they
taken and who ordered it done?"

?

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/21/9_11_widow_sues_the_bush http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=20GGyDWAF4M

If you don't want the truth, then follow the advice I gave above, sod off and never again show your face on any forum on which I am present.

Ooooh look at you, King of the Forums now. All bow to dagget.

You can have this pissy thread, but I'm staying in the forum.

One last thing: all events are exploited for political gain. Do not confuse exploitation for creation. Howard did not create the SIEVX, the US religious right did not create Terry Shiavo, noone created Hurricane Katrina and George Bush (or insert conspiracy of choice here) did not plan 9/11.

(continuedfromabove)

(This replaces an earlier post, which I will ask to be deleted, because I mistakenly gave Ellen Mariani's late husband's name as 'Louis' instead of 'Neil'.)

Now, if you want the truth, Bugsy, would you then care to explain to Ellen Mariani, whose husband Neil Mariani was said to have been killed on flight 175 on 11 September 2001, why she is not entitled to answers to the following questions that she asked in an open letter to President Bush in 2004:

http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/emlawsuit.htm

"We the families of 9/11 victims need to have answers to the following questions:

"1. Why were 29 pages of the 9/11committee report personally censored at your request?

"2. Where are the 'black boxes' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

"3. Where are the 'voice recorders' from Flight 11 and Flight 175?

"4. Why can't we gain access to the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175?

"5. Where are the airport surveillance tapes that show the passengers boarding the
doomed flights?

"6. When will complete passenger lists for all of the flights be released?

"7. Why did your brother Jeb (the Governor of Florida) go to the offices of the Hoffman
Aviation School and order that flight records and files be removed? These files were then
put on a C130 government cargo plane and flown out of the country. Where were they
taken and who ordered it done?"

?

See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/21/9_11_widow_sues_the_bush http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=20GGyDWAF4M

If you don't want the truth, then follow the advice I gave above, sod off and never again show your face on any forum on which I am present.

---

Bugsy wrote, "Do not confuse exploitation for creation. ..."

Thanks, Bugsy.

It had never occurred to me until now that GWB was not the (direct) cause of Hurricane Katrina or the Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami. And as he clearly was not it also logically follows that his administration could not possibly have carried out the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

GWB obviously didn't gain much from Hurricane Katrina, so was quite unlikely to have wanted to plan it but you can ask yourself: who stood to gain the most?

It's pretty obvious that the Democrats have made the most mileage out of that particular disaster, therefore that establishes a motive. The levees were rigged with explosives. Someone reckoned they saw it and that there was explosive residue found at the scene.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/04/337935.shtml

Then again, there are a lot of oil refinieries near New Orleans, so it could have been a GWB plot to increase the price of gas or the property developers that wanted the poor districts. Whatever.

All we need to do now is figure out just how they did it.

If anyone's wondering why the first of the two almost identical posts above have not been deleted, it's because Graham Young declined my request for him to delete my own post. He castigated me thus:

James,

There is a limit to how much I am going to do to clean-up others mistakes.
In this case I'm going to decline.

Graham

---

I have to say, I am a bit mystified as to what other mistakes he has been cleaning up. Looking back there seem to be a lot of abusive posts from people who've explicitly stated they had no intention whatsoever of treating this discussion seriously.

And I have been told by a number of people that Graham's overall diligence in either cleaning up such messes or preventing them from being made in the first place has been such that they don't even bother with OLO

---

It seems as if Bugsy's erstwhile righteous indignation ("Now f@ck off and leave me alone, you raving nutter.") at my having allegedly provoked him into returning to "this pissy thread" has quickly dissipated.

Furthermore, he appears to have turned the tables on me by having employed humour.

Bugsy has pretended to take seriously what I intended as sarcasm in order to show up the sort of logic that someone like myself, who holds to the deluded notion that the the US Government must have carried out the September 11 attacks, would have applied to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

I feel devastated.

I don't know if I will ever be able to hold my head high on this forum again.

Bugsy wrote, "George Bush ... did not plan 9/11."

Bugsy knows this because Bugsy has personally looked at the airport surveillance tapes that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and has seen with his own eyes Ellen Mariani's husband Neil Mariani and all the other passengers that George Bush told us boarded the doomed flights 11 and 175 boarding the planes just as George Bush said they did.

And Bugsy has personally obtained copies of the passenger lists for the doomed flights that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and seen with his eyes that the passengers who boarded those flights are exactly the same passengers that George Bush told us they were.

And Bugsy has personally viewed all the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175 that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and verified that the flights flew exactly in the same manner that George Bush told us they had. (see again http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/emlawsuit.htm)

---

Newsflash, Bugsy: A lie repeatedly stated doesn't suddenly become the truth.

---

Actually Bugsy, as George Bush is widely understood to be the front man for Dick Cheney who makes all the real decisions, I would concede that George Bush probably did not personally plan the 9/11 attacks, but he had to have known about them in advance.

How else is George Bush's bizarre behaviour upon learning of the attacks to be explained? Why did he and his security agents depart from standard procedure and not immediately take him away from a location that was known in advance to the public and hence to the terrorists who were carrying out the attacks the time? Why did he continue to read nursery rhymes to children unless he already knew that he was not a target?

I watched some of the movie "United 93" shown on free to air television last night. It purported to tell the story of how the passengers in the hijacked Unite Airlines flight 93 overpowered the hijackers and prevented them from reaching its target, that is the U.S. Capitol building. This motivated me to read the chapter in the PDF (1.7MB) version of David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" (2004) at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf

The chapter presents very compelling evidence that suggests that Flight 93 may have been deliberately shot down at the point which the passengers were taking control of the aircraft back from the hijackers. Had the passengers gained control of flight 93, there is every reason to expect that the qualified pilot amongst the passengers would have been able to land Flight 93 intact and there would have been a live hijacker to be interrogated.

On the strength of that chapter alone, it is worth purchasing a hard copy of that book.

---

If anyone knows where David Ray Griffin's hypothesis has been refuted, please let me know.

Further to my above point that George Bush and his security agents departed from standard procedure after being told that America was under attack, see the stills from the video of George Bush reading a children's story at http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm A truncated version of this footage that has been available online since June 2002 shows Bush for only 2 minutes, 10 seconds after being told. This new footage more than doubles this length of time.

As one blogger commented recently: "The leaders were warned repeatedly that such attacks were coming, yet chose to do nothing -- even during the actual attacks -- as Bush sat reading about a goat rather than responding as 'Commander in Chief' to a coordinated attack on the nation. This was treason, in plain sight (thanks to the personal camcorder of one of the teachers at Booker elementary school)." (http://911blogger.com/node/18269)

I see, dagget, you are now conducting a conversation with yourself. I am continually amazed at the nonsense you will regurgitate. Is there anything you are actually ever skeptical about, besides of course the official version (which is always false because THEY are all liars)?

Are you prepared to believe EVERY conspiracy theory, now matter how bizarre and unsupported? Or have you actually encountered an idea that even you find a little far fetched?

We get that you don't like George Bush, hell who does? Not even his dad it seems. But are you seriously suggesting that you can deduce Bush's complicity in these attacks from his initial reaction to the news?

It seems you are in urgent need of a bullsh!t detector. In fact I'm surprised someone hasn't convinced you that the CIA is listening to your thoughts and that your posts here are putting you in mortal danger.

Does it never strike you as ironic that people believe just as fervently in UFO's or fairies. Has it occurred to you that there is NO WAY of convincing those people that UFO's and fairies don't exist, even though they are clearly NUTS.

I have a question for you.

Why would a gov't which was so capable and so evil, allow themselves to look so bad by telling the truth about the lack of WMD's in iraq after the invasion? Surely such capable and evil people, who could pull off the largest and most complex conspiracy in history, could come up with some fake WMD's? And don't even suggest for a minute that they couldn't do it, because your whole conspiracy depends upon their ability to do ANYTHING

Paul.L,

I note that you have still not answered the question which I put to you twice and therefore have failed to acknowledged the logical absurdity of your own implied positions that it is more likely that the twin towers and WTC7 would have collapsed so symmetrically and neatly if it had not been a planned controlled demolition.

---

What is far more bizarre than anything I have written is the official explanation for the 9/11 attack which, amongst other things, as I said, rejects the laws of physics and current structural engineering knowledge.

It is odd that you don't also find Commander-in-Chief George Bush's seemingly serene behaviour, as the rest of the country was in turmoil for 20 minutes after he had admitted knowing that he had learnt of the initial attack had and five minutes ofter he had been informed of the second attack occurred, bizarre.

It is bizarre to imagine, as depicted in the Movie "United 93" that neither the President nor the Vice President could be reached for all the time after the first of the hijackings was reported at 9.19am. It is bizarre to imagine that it was not possible for the pilots of United Airlines Flight 93 could not have been warned of the other hijackings and the attack on the first World trade Center Tower at 8.46am before the terrorists/patsies in their own flight acted at 9.15am.

All this can be confirmed by viewing the time line of the 9/11 attacks at http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_day_of_9_11_events http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

It is also bizarre that absolutely no-one was found to be at fault for the most spectacular and complete failure of the most formidable national defence system on this planet that occurred on 11 September 2001.

---

As I said, I can manage with or without your participation in this forum. I know that other people are reading this even if they don't post.

Even to the extent that this forum has been deliberately spoilt by trolls I think it remains a useful resource even if no-one else contributes from now on.

You really are sad.

I've said numerous times that I think that the manner of the collapses of the three buildings on 9/11 does not provide a case for your ridiculous notions.

The is "it more likely or less likely" is just stupidity on your behalf. The likelihood of an event occuring in a particular manner is not evidence of anything. How likely is it that someone wins the lotto? ! in 500,000,000. Yet it happens. How likely is it that the US gov't would deliberately kill thousands of its own citizens to further its own ends, but be so honest that they would actually admit that there were no WMD's left in Iraq?

I see you refused to answer my question. I assume its because you can't really answer it. Which isn't surprising.

Paul.L wrote, "You really are sad.".

Don't you think there has been more than enough ad hominem attacks by now?

How about just addressing the arguments and looking at the evidence?

---

You attempted to refute my argument that the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7 had to be controlled demolitions by claiming that no building as tall as the twin towers had yet been demolished in that way.

My simple point was that your argument that it would be so difficult to achieve such symmetric and neat collapses using planned demolition then that would surely be even more applicable to unplanned collapses.

Why is that "stupidity"?

---

Paul.L wrote, "I see you refused to answer my question. I assume its because you can't really answer it. Which isn't surprising."

The fact that I don't immediately follow each and every rabbit you set free down all the burrows doesn't mean that I am incapable of eventually doing so.

I would suggest to you that there are a good many more of my own arguments of my own that you have failed to respond to.

I don't consider your argument about WMD's in Iraq:

"How likely is it that the US gov't would deliberately kill thousands of its own citizens to further its own ends, but be so honest that they would actually admit that there were no WMD's left in Iraq?"

... to be a serious argument. The WMD lie had well and truly served its purpose by the time the U.S. was finally forced to admit there were no WMD's. That they admitted that at that point, rather than take all the political risks entailed in planting evidence to 'prove' that the WMD program did exist, is a strange concept of 'honesty' IMHO.

They lied through there teeth over the Iraq War and they lied through their teeth over the September 11 attacks.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The fact is that the evidence that you have largely avoided discussing points overwhelmingly to the likelihood that senior figures in U.S. administration did indeed plan to murder thousands of their own citizens. The only way that they can possibly hope to clear themselves of any suspicion of having committed that crime is for a proper enquiry to be held and for all of the evidence that has been suppressed by the Bush administration, including those airport surveillance tapes demanded by Ellen Mariani be released.

---

Paul.L wrote, "Does it never strike you as ironic that people believe just as fervently in UFO's or fairies. Has it occurred to you that there is NO WAY of convincing those people that UFO's and fairies don't exist, even though they are clearly NUTS."

Of course one can't prove that "UFO's and fairies don't exist", but that is beside the point. There is no evidence of which I am aware that proves their existence.

In regard to the 9/11 attacks, there is abundant evidence that proves the official explanation cannot possibly be true, or that the probability against it being true is so extremely high that, for all practical purposes it has to be discounted.

You say >> "They lied through there teeth over the Iraq War and they lied through their teeth over the September 11 attacks."

And yet they told the truth about something which damaged them badly. If they could have found WMD in Iraq,

1) Bush would have been a hero, his place in history assured
2) Support for the war would have stayed higher for longer
3) The case against Iran would be that much stronger.
4) American policy of preemptive intervention would have prevailed

There are one hundred reasons for "finding" WMDs in Iraq. On the against side, being found out. If we follow through with your hypothesis that the US has unlimited capability and can keep a massive conspiracy secret, why would they come clean?

There was no real upside, and the downside was spectacularly bad.

By the way, I noted that you were sad because if you go back over the posts we have discussed ad nauseam your question about "what was more likely". Secondly I only put one question to you and you avoided it. You put two hundred and then get huffy when I neglect to respond to all of them.

Paul.L,

If they had 'found' WMD's in Iraq and not had allowed the WMD's to be independently verified by UN inspectors, who, apart from you, would have believed them?

---

Paul.L, "You ask me whats more likely? Is it more likely that these buildings, two of them 3 times higher than any building ever demolished before, were brought down by chemical or explosives that nobody heard, nobody saw, and of which no traces were left, by people nobody saw. A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name? And both began to collapse at the exact point of impact?"

This is garbage! Many witnesses testified that they heard explosions. I've seen firemen at the scene on a YouTube broadcast saying so.

You will have to show me what you mean when you say "A substance no one on the denier’s side can actually name?"

I have heard them name Thermite on a number of occasions. Can you show me where that is disputed?

“If they had 'found' WMD's in Iraq and not had allowed the WMD's to be independently verified by UN inspectors, who, apart from you, would have believed them?”

Even if they had found WMD, and those WMD had been verified by independent experts , it would have made no difference. It would have taken the left about three months to find some or other pretext to revert to their rabid anti-Americanisms.

Daggett,

You say >> "If they had 'found' WMD's in Iraq and not had allowed the WMD's to be independently verified by UN inspectors, who, apart from you, would have believed them?

Why would they not allow them to be independently verified?

Your whole case that the US govt was behind the 9/11 attacks assumes that they have UNLIMITED capability. That ANYTHING is possible. Therefore, with this unlimited capability they could produce real WMD's for independent analysis. It would not have been a problem of anywhere near the complexity of organising this conspiracy on 9/11.

Thermite,

Firstly thermite does not explode. It is a chemical which burns rapidly at a very high temperature. However it could not be used in building demolition because compared to shaped charges it is very slow and unpredictable. See these videos. I imagine it will be the first time you have ever seen thermite. Demolishing a building roughly inside its footprint requires that the members be cut at exactly the right time. There is no way to guarantee with thermite exactly when, after you have initiated the burn, the steel will be cut.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmHJORTlqk
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=oiRJj2oRWnM&feature=related

compare this with a shaped charge which cuts almost instantly, and with a very big bang.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LudNqf56AFo&feature=related

Paul.L's WMD argument is ludicrous and appears to be designed to waste my time and divert people's attention from the physical evidence and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that shows that the Bush cabal almost certainly orchestrated the attacks. No-one claimed that those within the Bush administration who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks had unlimited resources.

Those prepared to look, unlike Paul.L, will see huge and gaping holes in the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, whilst massive resources would have been necessary to stage these attacks, they still would have had vastly less than what would have been necessary to completely conceal the evidence that the U.S. Government had orchestrated the attacks everybody.

Likewise with the WMD's I don't see how it would have been possible, even with the massive resources which would have been available to the U.S., to plant evidence of a substantial WMD program in Iraq in such a way that WMD inspectors and other expert observers would not have seen through it.

---

I don't have time to immediately unsplit every hair that Paul.L has split, but I commend the blog entry (http://www.911blogger.com/node/15847) of Kevin Ryan (http://www.ultruth.com/) the celebrated whistle blower, who was sacked for publicly criticising his employers 'investigation' into the causes of the collapses of the WTC buildings, which is further evidence that explosives must have been used.

It includes photos of roasted cars in the WTC basement, the non-metallic parts of many of which had been completely vapourised.

A fireman said of the man who gave him the photos, "I asked him if he saw any molten metal, he told me there were pools of molten metal under the pile and in the basements. He even said that there were spots that water had pooled up and was just bubbling like a pot of boiling water with molten metal underneath, like in the Nat/Geo movies of underwater volcanic lava flows."

The person who took the photos is now dying of cancer as a result of having breathed in so much concrete, asbestos and other poisons which had been pulverised by the explosions.

Dagget,

After humouring you for all this time I find it rather offensive that you would suggest that my contention was ludicrous. Every time I shoot down one of your stupid arguments you ignore it as if it never happened and move on. So in your latest rant we hear nothing about thermite? Why?

In my latest posts I have 1 point, so unsplitting hairs or your supposed difficulty in responding to ALL my points is just RIDICULOUS.

You say " No-one claimed that those within the Bush administration who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks had unlimited resources."

This is absolute BULLS!T. All of the conspiracy NUTS theories RELY upon the fact that ANYTHING they think of could be carried out by the US gov't.

For example the building demolitions. No civilian contractor could have done this without months of preparation time, mountains of explosives, and even still the evidence that the building was demolished would be OBVIOUS. YET you conspiracy nuts conclude that the US gov't could have done it because you assume they have capability that no one else has.

I contend that the capabilities to find fake weapons in Iraq and have them independently verified is a FAR, FAR easier task than hijacking four jets, and killing or hiding their passengers, Demolishing three massive buildings, smashing the pentagon, and have NO REAL evidence show up. So WHY wouldn't they do it.

There IS NO actual evidence of gov't involvement, merely variations on the "the possibilities of it happening this way are remote". Of course that is an entirely subjective judgement, as many people have no problem with the manner in which things occurred, even after reading the nonsense put about by the loonies.

They say 1 in 4 Americans believe in the conspiracy. what a surpise that this number also coincides with the number of retards.

see http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/south_park_1009.wmv

Paul.L wrote, "So in your latest rant we hear nothing about thermite? Why?"

I didn't write anything about thermite because I simply don't have time to get my head around every imaginable technical aspect related to 9/11. Whatever you imagine you have proven by writing about thermite, there are abundant records of eyewitness accounts of explosions prior to and during to the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7. Here are just some, including actual recordings of explosions:

"9/11 witness heard explosion before south tower collapse" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xBSueewHs9s
"WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
"9/11 - Explosion witness Compilation" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=qGx7ci-9KiU
"9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw (10 min - incorporates some of the other broadcasts)

The broadcast "9/11 Key Witness Barry Jennings Murdered?" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nguZciLJTj4 decribes the case of Barry Jennings who was interviewed for "Loose Change" and subsequently asked that his interview not be included as threats against his job and other unspecified threats had been made against him. On 19 August just over two months ago he died under mysterious circumstances at the age of 53.

On top of the evidence of explosions, there is abundant evidence of the existence of large pools of molten steel underneath the wreckage of the twin towers for days after the collapse. I gave some evidence of this in my last post and you have not acknowledged that.

Paul.L wrote "They say 1 in 4 Americans believe in the conspiracy. what a surpise that this number also coincides with the number of retards."

I am sure that the proportion of U.S. citizens who believe that the Government was behind the attacks is closer to 50%.

Tell, me Paul.L, do you think that for up to half an our after George Bush admitted he learnt of the attacks (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm), he acted as:

A) a 'retard'; or
B) someone who had foreknowledge of the attacks?

Daggett,

1) you were the one who brought up Thermite. I merely pointed out to you that Thermite doesn’t explode.

2) Just because people thought they heard explosions, doesn’t mean the building was demolished. There are a lot of things which can sound like explosions when millions of tonnes of steel is raining down. When very large things like steel beams break they make a big bang, funnily enough. There were also transformers in the building and UPS which could easily have exploded. However seismic recorders situated nearby picked up no evidence of the sort of explosions necessary to drop a building.

3) ALL demolitions of large buildings take the lower floors out first to get the building moving. The collapse of WTC1,2 began at the points where the damage was done. How were the explosives on those floors able to withstand the collision of the jets at 800km/h and the 1100 degree fires which ensued?

4) No structural damage occurred on the floors below the collapse until the falling floors above reached them. This does NOT occur in controlled demolition.

5) Molten steel. Where is the evidence? Certainly no molten steel was retrieved from the site. Secondly there were a lot of other metals on site which could have been in a molten state.

Here is the best article I’ve found so far that deals with your pseudo-scientific claims. READ IT please. It covers ALL of the arguments you have used on this site and answers ALL of them.

You have offered NO actual evidence, only hearsay, speculation and the “how could it have happened like that” pseudoscience of the uneducated or ill-informed.

Bush's reaction proves NOTHING. It certainly doesn’t prove foreknowledge and even suggesting it is SO preposterous that I am wondering if there is ANYTHING you won’t believe/repeat. Just in case you are so obtuse that you think I’m avoiding the question, I think the way George Bush acted for however long it was, was intended to demonstrate that he wasn’t panicking. But regardless, drawing conclusions like this is PURE speculation and has NO MERIT

Paul.L wrote, " I merely pointed out to you that Thermite doesn’t explode."

See "Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

"Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in
various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the
aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of
ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality,
resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in
preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction
to cut through steel."

To view more evidence in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis, I suggest that others visit the site "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" at http://www.ae911truth.org/ and follow the links on the right hand side about the collapses of the twin towers and WTC7.

To view more evidence that there were tonnes of molten steel, some of which remained red hot for weeks after the collapses under ther three towers, visit http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D linked from http://www.ae911truth.org/.

Paul.L wrote, "Just because people thought they heard explosions, doesn't mean the building was demolished. ..."

This ignores testimony and direct acoustic evidence of explosions in the YouTube broadcasts I listed above. It also ignores testimony of Barry Jennings (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nguZciLJTj4) the Deputy Head of Emergency management of New York City who died just over two months ago under mysterious circumstances just as pressure for New York City to hold its own inquiry into the 9/11 attack. He clearly clearly testified that he heard numerous explosions in WTC7 even before the collapse of the first of the Twin Towers.

"I know what I heard. I heard explosions. The explanation I got
was that it was the fuel oil tank. [shakes his head] I'm an old
boiler guy. If it was the fuel oil tank, it would have been one
side of the building. "

If nothing else, I think others are entitled to conclude that just because Paul.L tells us that he doesn't see the evidence, this proves doesn't prove that the evidence doesn't exist.

To view overwhelming testimony from firefighters that they heard explosions which can't be accounted for by the explanations that Paul.L has offered visit "Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions in the Oral Histories" at or download the primary document "118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers" at http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

Paul.L wrote, "... I think the way George Bush acted for however long it was, ..."

As Barrie Zwicker said:

"That famous whisper in the ear must be put into context. It takes
place at 9:05 am. That's one hour and five minutes after the first
hijacking – forty-five minutes after the FAA is aware of multiple
errant airliners, 20 minutes after the first aircraft smashes into
the Trade Center; 18 minutes after CNN breaks into regular
programming. In other words, a torrent of hot water churns under the
bridge before whisper time." ("The Great Conspiracy" (transcript at
http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/tgc.html http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/TGC_transcript_GOIssue9.pdf ))

Paul.L continued, "... was intended to demonstrate that he wasn't panicking. ..."

George Bush had already, by his own admission, witnessed the first crash supposedly on an ordinary television broadcast even though no footage of the crash had been broadcast by any television station until the next day, and had claimed to have thought it must have been an accident. As Bush said in response to a child's question on 4 December, "I used to fly myself and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot and I said it must have been a horrible accident, ..."

So, when he learns of the second tower being hit, he sits there reading a story to a child FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES just to demonstrate to the whole world "that he wasn't panicking" as those responding to the attacks are paralysed because standing orders changed weeks earlier by Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld prevent them from acting until they are able to contact the President, the Vice President or the Secretary of Defence, who are all uncontactable (as depicted on "United 93" shown on TV last Friday)?

---

I think we can safely conclude that Paul.L's willingness to accept, as within the bounds of understandable human behaviour of someone with no prior knowledge of the attack, what we witnessed of George Bush on 11 September 2001 proves that nothing will raise in Paul.L's mind any suspicions about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks.

Dagget,

What do I need? Some actual evidence of explosives, or someone admitting they were involved in planning these attacks. Something other than a bunch of half-smart conspiracy nuts making claims way above their level of understanding.

You have nothing. Just "what about the things that sounded like explosions" or " how could three buildings collapse like that" or " look at the way george bush acted".

NOTHING. I see you didn't bother to read the one link I gave to you. Its clear NOTHING will convince you because you are determined to believe the worst about Bush and the US gov't because it fits neatly into your warped worldview.

Evidence from the website you posted.

>> "“I was kind of in disbelief that the building was actually collapsing. ... I couldn’t believe that the entire building was going
to collapse in one heap.”(Captain Charles Clarke, 9110250) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse. Frankly anyone who wasn't a little shocked on 9/11 isn't human. The events were MAMMOTH in their proportion.

No one actually saw any explosions and as we have already established thermite does not explode. It initiates very rapidly but it does not explode. Just because people heard, or thought they heard explosions is evidence of nothing. No explosives residue was found.

Tell me Dagget how this explosive material survived the impact and inferno created by the jets flying into the towers? No explosives can withstand burning jet fuel.

More " evidence ",

>> "Date molten metal was observed: "more than a month after the collapse" up to 10/11/01" http://www.ae911truth.org/

Funnily enough the type of molten metal is NOT named. It could have been any of a number of metals which burns at temperatures much lower than steel.

The standard of scholarship of the conspiracy theorists is SO POOR, its no wonder that only the half-smart believe their nonsense.

As for your determination to draw a conclusion from Bush's behaviour ... why do we need lie detectors when dagget can tell what you know by your body language. Spooky.

It's Moonbat vs Wingnut!

Quite delightful really, from a purely Schadenfreude perspective.

Hilarious. Keep it up, lads.

P.S. I actually agree with Paul's salient points, but I don't understand why he continues to argue with poor old James. Remember the old saw about arguing with a fool?

CJ, The Champion of PC, the voice of "the worrying" class, he's BAACK! For some reason, can't really tell why, I recall the "empty vessels" idiom every time I see one of your posts.

Aren't you being missed at the loony-lefts annual self flagellation benefit?

Great to see that you AGAIN have something valuable to contribute on a discussion which doesn't involve fighting for your right to see naked children.

Please, Please, can we hear more of your harping and whining? I mean, actually discussing issues is clearly NOT a goal which should be pursued on OLO.

I know you and a lot of others on OLO only want to pat each other on the back over how "concerned" you are about PC issues, which is why you prefer talking to people who share your soft-left ideological beliefs.

Well, I'm not interested in chasing the warm glow of fraternal approval. Thats why I prefer to engage with people who disagree with me and you'd prefer to stand on the sidelines and snipe.

I'm glad you're getting some amusement out of this argument. We all know what they say about the easily amused and in your case it is especially apt.

Paul.L wrote, "Tell me Dagget how this explosive material survived the impact and inferno created by the jets flying into the towers? No explosives can withstand burning jet fuel."

I suggest you use your imagination. Surely, whoever set up the charges would have been able to find ways to have shielded them against burning fuel on the floors close to where the impact was expected.

Paul.L wrote, "... we have already established thermite does not explode."

No, we haven't.

I will repeat part of my quote from "Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

"The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality,
resulting in 'super-thermites'."

Paul.L wrote, "Molten steel. Where is the evidence? Certainly no molten steel was retrieved from the site."

Check out these images:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/molten_steel_unsharp_mask_resize_big_notext.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/Red_Hot_Debris_oct_21_2001_from_lironews.pdf.jpg

... to be found in
http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D

Paul.L, I am getting weary of your pronouncements that no evidence exists when not only does it exist, but it is almost impossible for anyone who has visited the links I have given to miss.

I will return some other time in order to set the record straight on the rest of the disinformation contained in your recent posts.

Dagget

You say “ … use your imagination. Surely, whoever set up the charges would have been able to find ways to have shielded them against burning fuel ...

I know using your imagination forms the main approach you take to this whole issue. The rest of us want evidence, we don’t want to pretend or imagine. Secondly, you again prove my point that the conspiracy theorists believe that the US gov’t can do ANYTHING they(the nuts) can think of.

I don’t think you have ANY idea of the layout of the building and the placement of the steel columns. Have a look http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-fig%202-8%20floor%20construction.jpg
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/01/wtc_graphic.gif

Please tell me how these exposed columns were rigged with the tonnes of thermite necessary to cut them. Even when thermite is altered so that the speed of burning is increased, it is still NOWHERE near the speed of an explosive cutting charge. Hundreds of kilos of thermite would be needed to cut each of these beams in the period required, with excess thermite spewing everywhere. Furthermore thermite can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Even if this was reduced to seconds, an improvement of 6000%, it would still be far too slow to demolish a building sucessfully.
see http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bUSeHOizPC4
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0&feature=related

NIST says >> “Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile (weeks) than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.(minutes) http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

But you don’t show molten steel, you show red hot steel. I know you will struggle with the difference, but molten steel means steel in liquid form and it isn't picked up by the pincers of a crane.

Normal fires like the hydrocarbon fire caused by burning jet fuel will turn steel red hot and reduce its strength to less than 10% of its normal value.

Just to let others know:

I asked the moderator, who turned out to be Graham Young, to delete a post above which addressed me, yet again, as 'wingnut', on the grounds that it was insulting to me, clearly intended to further disrupt the discussion and added nothing of substance about the topic at hand.

Graham Young's response was:

"Come on James."

My response, in turn, was:

"What I have complained of is clearly harassment.

"I can only presume that your continued refusal to treat the complaints of
myself and others seriously is because it suits you to have discussions of
topics, that you feel uncomfortable about, disrupted."

This looks like a very thorough debate over the 9/11 issue:

"The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi" at http://www.alternet.org/rights/100688/?page=1

It's attracted a huge number of comments.

David Ray Griffin is the author of the abovementioned "The New Pearl Harbour" at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf and a number of other books which demolish to official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

Come on, James - I called you a moonbat, not a wingnut.

If you're going to continue to spruke crackpot conspiracy theories, you'll need to develop a thicker skin. I imagine that "moonbat" is one of the milder appellations you attract.

Graham Young has yet again declined a request to have a post deleted. He assures me that the sound of barking in our midst "is well within the ambit of what appears on blogs and discussion threads." So I will do my best to ignore it.

---

Paul.L wrote, "Funnily enough the type of molten metal is NOT named. It could have been any of a number of metals which burns at temperatures much lower than steel."

Then Paul.L wrote, "The standard of scholarship of the conspiracy theorists is SO POOR, ..."

Poor enough for them not to understand the difference between metal burning and metal melting, perhaps?

Paul.L wrote, "But you don't show molten steel, you show red hot steel. I know you will struggle with the difference, but molten steel means steel in liquid form and it isn't picked up by the pincers of a crane."

Actually, I didn't have to struggle to hard to appreciate the difference between molten steel and red hot steel. In fact, it was only marginally more difficult for me than understanding the difference between metal burning and metal melting

Had you noticed that the caption to the first of the two images (http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/molten_steel_unsharp_mask_resize_big_notext.jpg http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D) included:

"Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F."

So, if we have photos of red hot steel 7 weeks after 11 September, it seems highly likely to me that there would have been some substance to the eyewitness accounts (one of which was referred to above) of there being pools of molten steel under the wreckage immediately after the attack.

Anyway, I will return to tackle the rest of the disinformation in Paul.L's posts at some other later point.

Dagget,

You say >> So, if we have photos of red hot steel 7 weeks after 11 September, it seems highly likely to me that there would have been some substance to the eyewitness accounts (one of which was referred to above) of there being pools of molten steel under the wreckage immediately after the attack.

You just don't have a clue do you. There is NO WAY that steel is still red hot 7 weeks after 9/11, because of heat transferred on the day of the collapse. The rubble piles were on fire for weeks after the collapse. That is what caused the steel to be red hot.

How is it that all of this molten steel was not photographed when it was finally removed from the site? I mean it didn't reform into 'I' beams after it cooled down did it? Like the guy in the terminator.

Why have you provided no evidence of molten steel except hearsay. And I went back to the conspiracy site you posted above and the first witness Peter Tully, saw molten metal a MONTH AFTER the collapse.

If you respond to ONE question from this post, then let it be this. How did they cut all the exterior columns with thermite, without any of the thermite or the molten metal spewing out everywhere?

They somehow cut them without there being any evidence of their being cut on the outside. Interesting.

BTW Disinformation? You must be joking. I think it might be a quicker task to idenitfy those people who you believe aren't part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

(Whatever else I have written I certainly concur with Paul.L's observations about the easily amused and people who prefer to snipe from the sidelines and not take a stance of their own.)

---

Paul.L wrote: "No one actually saw any explosions ..."

"That's when it went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down."

Note the use of the word 'see', Paul.L.

Also check out the frame at 7.00 into the broadcast "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw after the fuel would surely have burnt out.

What is the bright orange flash, if not an explosion?

Then check out the frame at 09.59 at the start of the collapse of one of the towers. What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?

Then check out :South Tower Coming Down" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&NR=1

Here is some of what I have transcribed of reporters narratives from the YouTube Broadcast "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

"... and every few minutes, you will hear a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion ..."

"When you ... down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions, going off every 15 or 20 minutes."

"There's a real sense of caution here on the part of police. I spoke to some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center, aside from the ones that made by the impact of the plane with the building may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so the fear is that there may have been some explosive devices planted in the building or in the adjacent area and that's why they are being so cautious."

Paul.L wrote: "That's it. Statements of surprise ..."

No, that's not 'it'.

Below is some of (tobecontinued...)

(...continuedfromabove) the recorded testimony of firefighters who say they heard explosions in http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf :

"... I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions..." - Richard Banaciski

"I'd say we were in the 30th or 31st, 32nd Floor, or something like that, and a few of the guys were lying wiped out on the floor, you know, taking a break with their masks off and lying in the hallway when there was a very loud roaring sound and a very loud explosion, and the--it felt like there was an explosion above us..." - Brian Becker

"We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide." - Richard Boeri

"We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center." - Gregg Brady

"... we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." - Edward Cachia

As I wrote, no-one should assume that just because Paul.L says that the evidence does not exist, that it doesn't exist. I therefore suggest that people look for themselves and not take Paul.L's word for it.

The above is far from a complete expose of all the illogicalities and denial of evidence that clearly does exist in Paul.L's posts.

Paul.L, before I proceed to get my head around the technical arguments about thermite/thermate, I would need some reassurance that what I write will not go in one ear and out the other.

An acknowledgement that you were wrong to assert that very strong evidence of explosions does not exist would go some way towards assuring me that I am not having a conversation with the deaf.

I have waded through this link that daggett posted, "The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi".

What I find so striking about it, as one who is not yet well 'read in' to this whole subject, is the prevalence of 'argument by abuse' as a tactic adopted by those (in this particular case Matt Taibbi) seemingly opposed to the very idea of calling the official story into question.

Argument by abuse has certainly so far been a characteristic of many posts to this thread on OLO.

I can only wonder why such posters feel so threatened by such questioning. Is it that some status they imagine themselves to have in the eyes of OLO viewers will be diminished if the argument that explanation of some of the events of 9/11 prove to be significantly different to the official record is sustained?

For me, the maintaining of an open mind as to what explanations really lie behind the events of 9/11 is made easy when it is remembered that the entire US electoral process is now conducted electronically, and thus, by definition, without the possibility of effective audit or independent scrutiny.

Elections are about power, and there are some persons who will stop at nothing to obtain power.

I have posted this link earlier in this thread, but I think it may have been effectively buried amongst other links. It is about the US electronic voting system. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures illustrating aspects of that eminently fraudable system: http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm . One at least relates to 9/11.

If it is possible to ensure malleable persons get declared to have been elected, it is but one more step for those who display such apparent 'knowledgibility' of the electoral process to lean upon what are effectively their own creatures to then make desired appointments of officials in the apparatus of government: it would be from among such that the doers of dirty work would come.

E pluribus dud 'em.

Paul.L (26/10/08) defended the US government’s plausibility on the 9/11 incident by suggesting that the US demonstrated willingness to admit it was mistaken in alleging the presence of WMDs in Iraq. He suggested that the US could have simply planted the WMDs to be found by the weapons inspectors in order to retain a motive to invade Iraq. He argued plausibly that planting WMDs in Iraq would have been far easier than organising 9/11 to look like a Muslim conspiracy.

Then again, you might consider that, to better retrieve its reputation and retain the right to invade Iraq, the US ‘bully’ also needed to become a‘victim’. Muslim attacks on the US could give it this status.

But the 9/11 event actually achieved so much more than simply justifying invasion of Iraq; it created a completely new paradigm. The remarkable, cinematic destruction of 9/11, plus the explanation quickly supplied by the US government, convinced the public and much of the world, not only of the need to invade Iraq, but of the need to jettison important elements of democracy. In this paradigm, any Muslim nation would have difficulty in asserting a right to manage its own affairs if the ‘international community, the US, and global commerce, deemed it to be harbouring terrorists.

One could point to growing US debt post 1973 and erosion of the formerly glorious energy and material endowments that underpinned its giant economy and the credo of manifest destiny. The US is struggling unsuccessfully to maintain its post-WW2 hegemony and domestic harmony. It does not seem impossible that some mad part of the regime could have resorted to stage-managing world perception in order to bolster position.

On one thing we are all in agreement: 9/11 required an elaborate conspiracy and complex engineering - by some agency - so bold that it is almost hard to believe the event was possible.

Dagget,

The you tube video “Total proof that bombs were planted” is the worst I’ve yet come across. They have deliberately melded quotes and events out of context. For example when the firefighter says clear out there is a bomb in the building, they are at bomb hoax at Stuyvesant high school 5 blocks away from the WTC. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

Of the 118 witnesses you are referring to, (which comes from Graeme McQueens paper ) http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf
what you don’t realize is that NONE of them believed they were experiencing actual bombs. The quotes are ALL taken out of context. Of the 31 first responders (fireman and the like) who used the word ‘bomb’, 30 are referring to the collapse of the buildings, not bombs. Of the 81 who used the term ‘explosions’ over half are again referring to the collapse. NOT ONE of these people actually believed they had seen or heard bombs. See here for the extent that these nuts will go to, deliberately misleading the viewer/reader http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

Here is a building being demolished. Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg

Compare this with the close up of the twin towers collapse, which clearly collapses, starting at the impact point, one floor at a time. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGCFDoMmuA

In any case, in a 100 story office building there are a lot of things which can explode, Transformers, photocopyers, diesel generators UPS’s. Furthermore 16 first responders referred to the sound of jumpers hitting the pavement as like a bomb going off.

Do me a favour, if you watch one of these links make it this one. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

You say >> “What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?”

You really are exposing your total lack of understanding of engineering here. Explosions don’t PUSH buildings 500,000 tonne buildings, and thermite sure as hell doesn’t either. If the supports collapse on one side, and not on the other, the building will lean a little in that direction.

Kanga,

You have misunderstood my point regarding the WMD’s in Iraq. My point was that IF you are going to go to the extreme lengths of killing thousands of your own people in order to produce a casus belli, why on earth would you significantly damage this narrative of victimhood you have crafted, by being honest about not finding WMD in Iraq?

Finding WMD in Iraq after 9/11 would have immeasurably strengthened the hand of these 9/11 conspirators Among many other things, it would have undoubtedly meant that support for an attack on Iran would have been forthcoming. The NeoCon doctrine of premption would have been lauded as good policy and the Republicans wouldn’t be in the mess they are in today.

You say >>” In this paradigm, any Muslim nation would have difficulty in asserting a right to manage its own affairs if the ‘international community, the US, and global commerce, deemed it to be harbouring terrorists.’

Are you seriously suggesting that they planned 9/11 so they could oppress muslims?

Frankly, in this day and age, when the president can’t keep a blow job secret, there is just NO WAY, that such a conspiracy could be kept quiet.

Not ONE of the thousands of people who would’ve had to be in the know, has since become disillusioned and confessed? How is that possible?

NO WAY

Paul.L wrote, "... what you don’t realize is that NONE of them believed they were experiencing actual bombs."

Were you able to read their minds or do you have evidence for this assertion?

Paul.L wrote, "The quotes are ALL taken out of context."

Why not provide concrete examples of how the quotes I gave above were taken out of context?

In regard to the footage of the bomb hoax at the Stuyvesant School incuded in "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw, it appears foolish on the part of the producers of that broadcast to have included that. Whether it was an honest mistake or deliberate, I can't be sure, but I would, nevertheless challenge Paul.L to show how the rest of the broadcast, particularly the quotes I have transcribed are out of context.

Having said that, having a bomb hoax, shortly after the terrorist attacks drawing emergency workers away from the WTC, seems yet another of many curious coincidences on top of the 54,000,000 to one probability that the official 9/11 Commission Report gives to the complete failure of the whole of the American air defence system that made possible the success of those attacks.

I would also challenge Paul.L to tell me what part of the 9:51 minute interview "HIGHLIGHTS : Interview with John Schroeder 911 FIREMAN" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo, which further confirms what I have written above, is out of context.

---

Paul.L wrote, "Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut. ... Compare this with the close up of the twin towers collapse, which clearly collapses, starting at the impact point, one floor at a time. ..."

This is another of those recurring non-arguments of Paul.L's which prove absolutely nothing.

If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds thought, I am sure it would have occurred to him that there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please.

Paul.L, I note you failed to comment on the explosion as evidenced by a large bright orange flash partially obscured by black smoke shown at 7:00 minutes into the abovementioned broadcast at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw , long after all of the fuel should have burnt. Curiously that explosion occurred at the precise moment and precise location that the tower began to collapse.

How do you plan to explain away this?

---

Here's Graham Young's latest response to my complaints about the disruption caused by some 'contributors' to this forum:

"I didn't respond because it really does deserve a response. It's pretty
obvious that I publish a lot of material that I personally disagree with and
I deal with everything fairly.

"If you think the forum is biased then perhaps you should find another one.

"I don't have limitless time to deal with baseless complaints, so frequently
I do not respond to them."

Dagget,

I notice you didn’t respond to

1) the video which EXPOSES the LIES and the LIARS in the so-called truth movement. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

2) my point that building aren’t pushed anywhere by explosive cutting charges or thermite.

3) my point about the missing “molten steel” and why no one saw any cooled puddles of steel?

4) my point about how the exterior beams were cut without the hundreds of cameras catching it.

There are many more but I can’t be bothered going further back. Every time I make a point you can’t explain you move on. As if it never happened, yet when I don’t answer one of your silly questions you get whiny.

You attempt to cover for the LIARS who made the video, “Absolute Proof” is pathetic. They knew exactly what they were doing. AND YOU KNOW IT, Just rewatch the video.

John Schroeder is the ONLY first responder in the group of 118 witnesses referred to by Graeme McQueen, (that you didn’t even realize you were quoting) to actually suggest that the explosion sounds, might be explosives.

After watching the video provided, Schroeder is clearly NOT a complicated man, and I think that is putting it nicely. His contention that he was thrown about like a rag doll on the 26th Floor when the second plane hit is flat out contradicted by the evidence. There is NO WAY he and his crew had suited up, left their base, got to the trade centre, unpacked their gear and walked up to the 23rd floor in 17 minutes. What he was actually experiencing was the south tower coming down which was actually at 9.59am (his timeline is out by about 56 minutes). He has admitted that he had great difficulty in accurately remembering the events of that day. See http://911stories.googlepages.com/9%3A59%3Athesouthtowercollapses

Schroeder doesn’t understand how people were burned on the ground floor when the jet hit the 80th. See the explosions from jet fuel 15 seconds into this video and realize that jet fuel obeys the laws of gravity and would have poured down the elevator shafts.etc http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fEukLepgUPM

tbc

cont

As for McQueen and his 118 witnesses that you have referred to

>> MacQueen states, "The oral histories show that many people who originally thought they had witnessed critical explosions were later persuaded that they had not, and it appears that the pancake hypothesis was the main alternative they were offered." The oral histories show no such thing. MacQueen offers no evidence – none – to support this assertion. Like Jason Bermas of Loose Change, MacQueen is content to publicly state that because all these FDNY first responders do NOT support the conspiracist claims, they all must have succumbed to "persuasion" to change their minds about what killed 343 of their brothers and friends and to never speak of it again.

You say >> If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds … there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please.

If you had half a brain you would know that building demolition occur with a SET sequence of initiations. You can’t just explode things in any order you please and expect the building to collapse in an orderly manner. You really have NO IDEA about any of this do you. Have a look at the science of building demolition before you start shooting your mouth off.

I watched the “south tower coming down” video. Tell me where are the supposed explosions which started the first floors collapsing? Why is it only the lower floors that have “so called” explosions occurring? See here for evidence of floors collapsing into one another http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pancake.jpg/pancake-full;init:.jpg
It collapsed 4 stories of concrete and steel into a three foot high lump. It comes from the site which rebuts ALL of McQueens claims http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

Re comment by Forrest Gumpp on electoral fraud - quoted below:
"Elections are about power, and there are some persons who will stop at nothing to obtain power. I have posted this link earlier in this thread, but I think it may have been effectively buried amongst other links. It is about the US electronic voting system. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures illustrating aspects of that eminently fraudable system: http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm . One at least relates to 9/11."

Proof of gross electoral fraud is rapidly materialising. This has great relevance to the 9/11 debate as it:
- is itself an activity many would find not possible to conceive of as being able to be perpetrated by the persons and positions being accused of it'.

- demonstrates that ambition knows no bounds or borders when adequately inflamed and intoxicated.

Check these video excerpts:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/145.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/465.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/466.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/467.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/271.html

So where should cynicism end?
In reality or in naivete?

WELL SAID, Paul.L.

Keep it up - both of you.

Paul.L, your response to the eyewitness accounts is nothing more than further time-wasting sophistry combined with I consider at least one inexcusable ad hominem attack.

So what if John Schroeder got some of his recollections mixed up? They clearly corroborate with a whole lot of other eyewitness accounts which confirm the controlled demolition theory.

Here are some firefighters talking shortly after the collapse. I am sure that this broadcast (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow) will already be familiar to many:

1st firefighter: "We made it outside. We made it about ablock ... "

2nd firefighter: "We made it at least two blocks, and we started running."

1st firefighter: (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds) "Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh ..."

2nd firefighter: (making roughly similar gesture with clenched fist) "Floor by floor they started popping out."

1st firefighter: "It was as if they had detonators ... "

2nd firefighter: "Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down."

1st firefighter:"...planned to take down the whole building." (gestures with hands again to mimic succession of descending explosions in synch with sounds) "Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom"

2nd firefighter: "All the way down. I was watching it and running."

There were two other firefighters in that group who clearly accepted the veracity of what was said.

---

Paul.L, you have failed to show where any of the quotes I have given have been taken out of context. All you have done is quoted Graeme McQueen out of context in order to misconstrue him.

If so many firefighters had been misrepresented by Graeme McQueen, why haven't they stepped forward to say so?

---

Paul.L wrote, "... building demolition occur with a SET sequence of initiations."

As I said the "SET sequence of initiations" can be in any order that the person setting up the demoliton chooses.

As it happens, Matthys Levy, author of "Why buildings fall down" (1998) happens to think that the Twin Tower collapses were controlled demolitions and European demolition expert Danny Jowenko beleives that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc)