The problem with your theories, Arjay, is that you insist on only seeing what you want to see.

>>The Manhatton Project involved 130,000people.<<

The fact that the US/Britain/Canada were working together on the production of a nuclear bomb was well known, even in Germany and Russia. Just as the Allies knew about the projects in Germany and Japan.

Nevertheless, the contractors had a pretty good idea of what they were working on. And talked about their involvement afterwards. Unlike any of your explosives-setters.

>>They were carrying out a terrorist attack scenario right at the time of 911<<

Not so. Unless you consider "sometime in the previous ten years" to equate to "right at the time".

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise/

>>NORAD was stood down for 2n hrs.Those planes would have been incepted and shot down mormally within 10-20 minutes.<<

Not so. NORAD was active the whole time. The simple fact was that there was no alert from the FAA to NORAD until after the third plane had crashed. And the hijackers had turned off the transponder, so the chances in that scenario - not knowing the threat existed, and then not knowing where they were - of an intercept in "10-20 minutes" is laughable.

>>4 black boxes went missing in one day.<<

Not so. Much of the information they contained - including flight path studies - is freely available. Try the National Security Archive on the George Washington University website, gwu.edu

>>Buildings of steel and concrete have burned for 24 hrs and not looked like collapsing.<<

Perhaps. None was hit by a plane fully loaded with aviation spirit, though.

>>On the stock exchange we see hundreds of put options on United Airlines<<

That one's so whiskery, it even has its own Snopes entry.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

>>Then we have Larry Silversten saying he had to "pull" Building 7.because it was too dangerous...<<

I rather like skepticblog's analysis of this.

http://skepticblog.org/2009/01/15/pull-it-the-best-911-evidence/

This is "all you've got", isn't it Arjay.

Which is the reason why no-one is going to set up another enquiry. It would be a comedy show.

Well Pericles we can only assume that NORAD were totally confused by the identical terrorist scenario being carried out on that day.The fact is,they failed to respond within the times they normaly do.

You have failed to address the hundreds of anomolies of 911 and even your cherry picking has left you wanting in the credibilty stakes.

Normal fires nor gravity cannot pulverise concrete into dust nor melt steel.

The elites are running scared and now seek war as the escape from their own people.They are ramping up the hatred twards the Muslims.No one wins a nuclear war.

Well, Arjay, I can only assume that you are referring to an entirely different NORAD.

>>Well Pericles we can only assume that NORAD were totally confused by the identical terrorist scenario being carried out on that day.The fact is,they failed to respond within the times they normaly do.<<

As you well know - or you should have found out by now - there was no "identical terrorist scenario being carried out on that day". There had been, at some point in the previous ten years, an exercise that was based on the hijacking of an aircraft as it entered US airspace. So i) it wasn't identical and ii) it wasn't being carried out on that day.

And to "respond within the times they normaly do" would require that i) someone alerted them to the anomalies, ii) someone alerted them to the fact that the transponders on the planes were inactive and iii) their operatives could distinguish the aberrant planes from the 3,500 radar images available to them.

Which part of all that confuses you?

>>You have failed to address the hundreds of anomolies of 911<<

I have addressed each one as you have presented them. And not one has survived scrutiny.

Not one.

>>Normal fires nor gravity cannot pulverise concrete into dust nor melt steel.<<

Fires of the nature witnessed on 9/11 did not need to "melt" steel in order to cause the collapse of the buildings, and were certainly fierce enough to weaken it, as Loudmouth pointed out.

And gravity sure can pulverise concrete. And some.

>>The elites are running scared and now seek war as the escape from their own people.They are ramping up the hatred twards the Muslims.No one wins a nuclear war.<<

At least you are using the same level of facts and logic for all your arguments, not just 9/11, I have to give you that.

Enough already guys. You're all totally off-topic now. This is supposed to be about Pilgers article not 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Interesting logic, Arjay:

1. If not-A [i.e. al Qaida involvement in 9/11], then B [i.e. US, specifically CIA, responsibility for 9/11].

2. A could not possibly be [there is no al Qaida, so keep talking about 'melting', explosives, third building].

3. Therefore B.

4. If B, then C [hatred of Muslims, i.e. of non-existent al Qaida]

5. If C, then D [threat of nuclear war]

6. If D, then E [diversionary threats of nuclear war as evidence of the US government's fear of, attempt to escape from, their own people]

6. So if not-A, then B, then C, then D, then E.

7. Could not possibly be A, therefore E.

Meanwhile, in parts of the real world, specifically the Middle East and Africa [including sub-Saharan Africa], the people - Muslims included - are showing the rest of the world how to organise for human rights and democracy.

I suspect that the non-existent al Qaida is going to be bitterly disappointed with many of the outcomes.

And - it's a weird world ! - so will sections of the Left.

Wouldn't be dead for quids !

Joe

You're right, Phil.

Pilger is a prolific writer, so I'm sure we can expect to read his take on the Middle East uprisings shortly. Give him time: he has to find some way to insert US responsibility for all evil, and opposition to all good, in his exposition.

It's always about the US. If they step out of line in the slightest - no intervention, not enough intervention, too much intervention - he'll be onto them like a shot.



Joe