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.