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