Yabby wrote, "Daggett, you probably never will get it, ..."

I'll "get it" when you present a logical case based on the evidence. This hasn't happened yet and your latest contribution has not changed that.

Yabby (yet again) reveals his ignorance of the most basic facts about 9/11:

"When planes crash, there is a designated Govt authority, legislated for and funded, to have a team of experts on the scene within hours, to investigate."

It took 441 days for the Bush administration to set up the 9/11 Commission. What other investigation was there?

Yabby further reveals his ignorance:

"... With buildings collapsing, there was simply no such authority."

There was FEMA and then there was NIST. Furthermore, Underwriters Limited a private body, funded by the Insurance industry was responsible for testing the strength of building materials. (Whistleblower Kevin Ryan has )

Yabby makes a sweeping generalisation, "The wheels of Govt never do turn too quickly, ..."

Well they sure moved quickly to announce who was to blame and to begin the invasion of Afghanistan to bring them to justice, to remove constitutional guarantees of human rights of US citizens and, in general, to push through the geopolitical and economic agenda of PNAC.

Yabby continued, "... so it took months and months, just to pass legislation and organise funding, for a Govt vehicle to be set up to do exactly that."

They tried not to have an inquiry at all. It was only due to the persistence of the four widows known as the Jersey Girls that the 9/11 Commission was held at all.

Yabby wrote, "Meantime the streets of NY were a mess, debris needed clearing, private enterprise works efficiently and quickly, stuff was carted away for dumping or recycling, tens of thousands of truckloads."

A likely story, Yabby.

Of course, it couldn't possibly have been to remove evidence that would have confirmed (or refuted) the controlled demolition hypothesis, could it?

Would you have believed Condoleezza Rice when she lied that the WTC dust posed no health risk to first responders and that even wearing a mask was unnecessary?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Yabby wrote, "The whole conspiracy story that you raise, came much much later."

In fact, on the very day, some people knew that the Government story did not add up. If the newsmedia had done its job properly, that would have been immediately apparent to the broader public. However the mainstream newsmedia failed to ask the hard questions and point out the inconsistencies and absurdities of the Government's case.

That job was left to private individuals.

---

Thanks, Yabby, for once again having shed so much light on this issue.

Could you now, perhaps, turn your attention to my question of 21 January?

"So, let me know if 'the clear evidence where the connections had failed, between the truss beams and the columns' or just computer models like those used by NIST to 'explain' the 'collapse' which can be made to do whatever the computer programmers tell them to do.

You are simply regurgitating the same old tosh, daggett. Shame on me for helping you to continue to air your ridiculous theories.

Here's a suggestion: instead of infecting every thread you can get your hands on with this garbage, why not continue the "main" thread you began all those months ago?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166

After 498 posts, spread over more than seven months between September 2008 to April 2009, you finally realized that you were talking to yourself.

Eight out of the last ten posts were written by you, and are entirely indistinguishable from the drivel you are posting here.

One of the two non-daggett posts in that set was from CJ Morgan, "Still channelling my late ex-mother-in-law I see, Jimmy", undoubtedly the only intelligible comment to be found amongst those ten.

You can flounce and posture your life away, daggett, and pretend that no-one is answering your ridiculous "questions" because they secretly admit that you have been right all along. But I'll play along no more, sorry for that.

A final piece of gratuitous advice: self-promotion works only when you use it to demonstrate how smart/handsome/clever/intelligent/entertaining etc. you are. It doesn't work quite so well when all you do is highlight your gullibility.

Pericles, if I am repetetive, it has been necessitated by your repetitive techniques of evasion and obfuscation.

Pericles wrote, "Shame on me for helping you to continue to air your ridiculous theories."

Actually, Pericles, I don't need your help to air my theories and I very much doubt if that was your purpose in prolonging this debate. There are plenty of other outlets on the Internet on which I can express my opinion, not least of all on my own blog to which a link is provided at the bottom of every post.

I would have been perfectly happy to have this debate finished quickly as did the debate over the article "Scaling back in Afghanistan would jeopardise security of the US" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9500&page=4

However, if you insist on pushing the lie that Islamists based in Afghanistan were the perpetrators of 9/11, when not one single person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured after 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan and even the FBI admits it does not heve enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with 9/11 then I feel I have not only the right to show that up for the lie that it is, but an obligation to do so.

Sorry, I'm not going to bite.

>>However, if you insist on pushing the lie that Islamists based in Afghanistan were the perpetrators of 9/11, when not one single person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured after 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan and even the FBI admits it does not heve enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with 9/11 then I feel I have not only the right to show that up for the lie that it is, but an obligation to do so.<<

I'm not even going to bother to point out that at no time have I "pushed [that] lie", nor to enquire from which orifice you plucked this lunatic concept.

Indeed, if you can find even one post in which I have referred to "Islamists based in Afghanistan", I'll send $100 to your favourite charity.

You're just weird.

OK, thanks, Pericles.

That's made it all perfectly clear.

9/11 was not perpetrated by the Bush administration.

Nor, contrary to the claims of the Bush administration, was 9/11 perpetrated by Islamist extremists based in Afghanistan.

So, who did it then?

The Mafia?

Insurance fraudsters?

Israel?

Aliens?