Paul.L,

I think two can play at the game of accusing the other of being a "conspiracy nut".

Let's recall that very recently, you were prepared to do what even the U.S. is no longer prepared to do, that is, accuse Allende of being a puppet of the Soviet Union in their plot to enslave the world. In your words:

"Allende took money personally from the KGB. He agreed to their involvement in reorganizing Chiles (sic) military and intelligence forces. Kissinger feared Soviet Expansionism and he was right to. Just look at Cuba. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121#45509)

(Others may wish to visit that thread to read my response, which Paul.L has not yet acknowledged.)

You justify the imposition of a dictatorship on South Vietnam in 1954, the cancellation of democratic elections, and the subsequent devastation of most of Indo-China by repeating the same paranoid Cold War propaganda, and I am supposed to be the conspiracy nut?

When democratic governments are overthrown, countries devastated, thousands, and up to millions, killed, I have learnt not to take, at face value, official government explanations, particularly those of the U.S. government.

However, contrary to my normal reflexive response, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, I did take, at face value, the U.S. Government version and subsequently even welcomed the invasion of Afghanistan, partly because of my revulsion at the attack and partly because of my detestation of the Taliban regime. To this day, in spite of the fact that the war has turned out very badly, I am not sure that that was wrong.

Anyhow, 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. (Do you accept at least that, Paul.L?)

Others have since arrived at the conclusion that there exists a prima facie case that the September 11 attacks were an inside job.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

(This continuation was inadvertently posted to the thread "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#45929 Let's hope that the software will allow me to post it here also.)

I would honestly feel a lot better if you 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?

(Whether Klein herself is prepared to come out and voice concerns over the 9/11 attacks is irrelevant. Possibly she has judged that becoming embroiled in that controversy would detract from the incontrovertible case she has argued in "The Shock Doctrine". In any case, I am not altogether uncritical of Naomi Klein as towering a figure as I think she is.)

"Having considered both Holocaust denial literature and the September 11 truth question, it seems to me that there is a lot more substance to the latter."

And I think there are universes seperating truth from your views. 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 attrocity.

Dagget,

Take a look at the poular mecahnics debunking 9/11 Myths. They have a very good/thorough analysis of each of the silly claims of the loose change (should really be "loose screws") crowd.

You do realise however that there is NOTHING which will really prove absolutely that the US gov't was not involved in 9/11 attacks. There is NO WAY to prove categorically that something DID NOT happen.

I mean, Popular mechanics can say, just for examples sake, that no explosives residue was found. The loose change bunch will just say that the investigators didn't look hard enough, or that the explosives were a new and untraceable type.

After all that has come out about the private lives and bad choices of presidential nominees, DO YOU REALLY THINK that this MASSIVE conspiracy could be kept quiet? That NONE of the thousands of people who would have needed to be in the know, would talk?

And what was the point of it all? Invading afghanistan? Really? Not somewhere really useful like Iran? America could have picked a fight with anyone on the back of 9/11 and had the support of 95% of the world. And you're suggesting that they did it so they could attack afghanistan.

And as for Iraq, it would have been a million times easier to have manufactured a chemical or biological event in the no fly zones in Iraq.

And why would these ultimate conspirators allow the fact that there weren't any WMD's in Iraq when the coalition invaded to stop them? Surely "planting" evidence of WMD's, thus securing the evidence that backed their case, would have been a SNIP compared with 9/11. Why would they NOT do that?

Sorry,

Here are the popular mechanics and debunking 9/11 myths web pages

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/

"Here are the popular mechanics and debunking 9/11 myths web pages"

How about some more mechanics on Bali, Madrid, London, Thailand, India, Russia, China and some 200 in Israel - was that US or Israel who did them?

How about some mechanics how you look when such attrocious stuff is even considered?