CJ Morgan,

As daggett/cacofonix/whatever wrote just now:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47461
"But it takes two to make a fight, doesn't it?

"All you needed to do was to have walked quietly away from this forum, which you still insist is a complete waste of time, or better still, not have bothered to post that first comment accusing me without any substantiation, of being "a tad obsessive", and there could not possibly have possibly been a fight."

---

The above was posted not in order to cause a fight with you, but in spite of that risk in order to post something of use to the discussion -- something you have proven yourself either incapable of doing or unwilling to do on the "9/11 Truth" forum.

The above post was intended for the Forum "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896 and not for here.

My apologies.

Hi,

Sockpuppet 911 reporting for duty. Thought I would try a slightly different analytical approach (posted in two parts due to word limits):
Part 1.
Does anyone deny that there must have been a conspiracy by someone to fly those planes into the towers?

No. There had to be a plan and it had to be secret.

So, the only questions remaining are

- who originated
- who carried out
- the conspiracy
- and for what reason?

It seems that those who suspect the US government of having originated, or carried out, the conspiracy generally find it difficult to believe the explanation that the US government has authorized for the 9/11 incident. They usually find it difficult because they find either the motives, modus operandi or the identification of the guilty parties unbelievable for one reason or another.

They then tend to assume that, since the US government explanation for what happened fails to convince them, that the US government has fabricated the explanation. They then assume that the US had a motive to do so and that the US had a hand in carrying out the 9/11 operation itself and is now covering this up.

A motive most often assumed is the US desire to take control of Iraqui oil. One means of control would be through invasion. Another means would be by buying Iraqui oil.

2nd Part:

FLAW: It is not known why the US would not have chosen to buy the oil rather than to invade Iraq.

COUNTER: Such a query relies on US currency remaining competitive on the open oil market and that market remaining an open, global one.

Could be that private industry was seeking to expand into military operations and that all parties feared that the price of oil would go up or get beyond their control so they sought to be in a position to control oil and prices by force. This needs exploring and would take up a whole article in itself. Even though Iraq still owns its oil, I find no doubt that Iraq decisions on oil are dominated by the US or US contractors operating like a government.

But the US did invade Iraq. To be able to do this the US had to find a reason to invade Iraq, after having propped up its regime for a long time.

Why US conspiracy theorists find the US explanation and guilt assignment implausible:

The US uses the self-professed Islamic hatred and resentment of the West as the major explanation for a number of Muslims having purportedly flown planes into the two towers.

Why don’t people believe this? And why don’t they believe that the identified Muslims didn’t carry out this remarkable exploit?

Personally, I thought the whole thing had a distinctive Hollywood design, but I guess that such style is now international.

Sockpuppet 911: << Personally, I thought the whole thing had a distinctive Hollywood design >>

Yes, it reminds me of Looney Tunes.

CJ Moron,

Perhaps you would care to share your sick idea of a joke with US Army reservist and 9/11 first responder David Miller, now dying as a result of having ingested asbestos, PVC, mercury, etc, mixed in with the concrete pulverised by explosives planted and/or primed in the twin towers on the weekend before Tuesday 11 September 2001 (listen to IT worker Scott Forbes and others who worked in the towers on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8).

At the end of a YouTube broadcast at http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/moore_911_could_be_inside_job.htm David Miller spoke:

"It's only been 5 years - 5 years of our family members watching us
drop dead - and every time Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)
calls the people of this movement 'nuts', these propagandists,
professional liars and tools, who cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be considered journalists, strike another nail into the
coffin of a rescue worker, and every time Time magazine dismisses
real hard physical evidence that a new investigation needs to be
launched into how concrete was pulverised - every time Time magazine
dismisses that evidence and instead writes a two page article about
the psychology of the conspiracy movement, they perpetuate this
build-up of people in very, very coordinated efforts to try to take
this movement apart. We, who are still dying from 9/11, who went to
those towers and into that pile, who now live with those buildings
in our lungs and our digestive systems and our blood, and if you
allow these scumbags to strip you and this movement of all of its
legitimacy, you condemn the first respondents to death."

... and while you're at it CJM, why don't you explain to him how you find "the sheer elaboration of the paranoia" so fascinating but regard his explanations of the physical evidence as a "tendentious rants" and why don't you tell him that you believe him to be an "aggrieved nobody"?

However, if you find that you don't have the courage of your convictions, CJM, then why not, instead, crawl back into the hole from whence you came and leave the rest of us in peace?