Finally, after 27 posts, a response that actually acknowledges the content of my own posts.

I think CJM should take a bow.

It seems that he is not quite as stupid as he usually seems (just as even George W Bush, himself, has been known to display signs of intelligence from time to time).

CJM wrote, "So he's a former combat pilot who's belatedly realised that he was little more than a hired gun ..."

Bravo, CJM!

I read here the stirring words of a militant and fierce opponent of Bush's New World Order.

I am sure that Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn, who would also dismiss Bowman's demands for a proper investigation into the September 11 attacks, whilst also telling the world that there was nothing suspicious about the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X and that the 2000 elections were not stolen by George Bush, could learn a thing or two from you.

So, CJM, can I take it that that is your complete response to my above query:

"Could ... you tell the rest of us why you don't consider Colonel Robert Bowman, William
Christisen and all those listed in the article at http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html
as as "serious commentators"? Could you tell me why you choose to disregard the
testimony of William Rodriguez
(http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1219050.interview_the_untold_story_of_september_11/),
who risked his life defying firemen's orders to leave the building, and was subsequently
decorated by George Bush himself?"

?

Also, again: Are you prepared to name any of the other "serious commentator and analyst(s)" of the left who, like you, unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war?

Also, again: Do you agree with Noam Chomsky that even if evidence that would satisfy him of the guilt of the Bush administration were to emerge, that it wouldn't "have any significance" (http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrination/noam-chomsky-and-the-gatekeepers-of-the-left/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU)?

James Sinnamon: << can I take it that that is your complete response to my above query >>

Yes.

<< like you, unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war >>

I've never said that I "unquestioningly accept the US Government's explanation of the war". Rather, I don't accept the crackpot conspiracy theories of those like you who claim that the US Government orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks against its own people.

Dagget,

Can't you see that there is no way of proving to those who deny the official version of 9/11, that it is true and accurate.

Can you not see that there are people who belive in UFO's and no matter what others say, will not be disuaded.

Some people believe in fairies, others believe in ghosts, and billions believe in a supernatural being who created the earth and the heavens.

Don't you ask yourself, what could THEY possibly have to gain. And given the few answers to this, wasn't there far easier, safer and more effective ways to achieve those aims?

Noam Chomsky is a loony lefter from way back. He never had any real credibility in the first place. His opinions on 9/11 are irrelvant.

Clearly it would make a very big differnce if the US gov't carried out the attacks. But don't let the fact that they didn't, get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

You seem to have a penchant for these conspiracy theories. Seems everyone is out to get you Dagget.

Have you heard of Occams Razor Dagget? I suggest you look it up if you haven't because it seems to be a tool you don't have. The ability to look at something and immediately jump to the most convoluted, complicated and far fetched explanations is not a skill or ability, it is an affliction.

I notice none of the conspiracy theorists responded to my question about whether the MOSSAD agents were wearing their SECRET AGENT badges?

Where is the healthy skepticism that all analysts should have. The conspiray guys seem to believe any half baked "evidence" presented by their one of their own.

Paul.L,

In fact, as I have shown, Noam Chomsky's authority has been effectively used by people like Phillip Adams to discredit people such as, for example, those trying to make known the truth about the assassination of JFK and who, who unlike Chomsky, do pose a threat to the US oligarchy (again, see "Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation" at http://192.220.64.45/media/cockburn.htm). The fact that he has been known to talk frequently like a 'looney lefter' --- as do some contributors to OLO --- should not fool anybody.

The question about what they could have gained has been answered over and over and over again. On the The New American Century web site they state:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor." (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

You asked earlier: Why they didn't simply pull another "Bay of Tonkin" style stunt? I think to ask the question, practically answers it: Most people would have seen through it immediately. (At least you seem to be further conceding that the justification for the Vietnam war was a lie (some discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2121&page=0). So some progress seems to be being made, here.)

In order to be able to shock US and world public opinion into meek acceptance of their plans, something far more dramatic and more terrible was needed.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

(And I have to say that it sure fooled me. Sad to say, I cheered on the US when it invaded Afghanistan and was almost convinced to support the invasion of Iraq. For years, I believed that David Hicks and the other Guantanamo Bay internees had largely brought the situation upon themselves, little realising that it was, in fact, Bush, Cheny, Rice and Rumsfeld that deserved to be incarcerated there.)

---

I believe I well understand the principle of Occam's Razor.

Now how about showing me an explanation of the sudden and complete collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 which is simpler than the controlled demolition theory? (And please don't give me links to arcane wordy technical pdf documents. If the explanation is that simple, then it should be possible for someone to render it graphically in ways that we can easily understood.)

---

I need to make it clear that I opposed the war in which Colonel Robert Bowman fought as a pilot as I have said often on OLO and even thinking about the harm he would have inflicted upon fellow human beings who would have otherwise bore him no malice in his 101 combat missions is a terrible thing for me to contemplate.

Whilst Bush's own motive for dodging that conflict appear to have been a combination of laziness and his wish not to have his easy and privileged life disrupted by a tour of duty in Vietnam, I would hope that Bowman would not condemn others who, unlike Bush, refused to fight because of principled opposition to that war.

It seems likely to me that Bowman's motives for having served in that conflict, although misguided, would have been honourable.

For being prepared to stand up and oppose that war machine being used to inflict further bloodshed and destruction shows immense moral courage on Colonel Bowman's part, even if CJM seems incapable of understanding that.

Dagget,

you ask for a more simple explanation. How about what actually happened. WTC1 and 2: Two half million pound aircraft filled with fuel flew into those buildings as 3/4 the speed of sound. Almost as fast as a subsonic bullet. Those buildings were structurally weakened by these events and subsequently collapsed.

WTC was hit by large pieces of rubble from the collapsing towers, and fires burned for most of the day uncontrolled. This wekened this building to the point that it collapsed.

Now lets look at your explantion.

These towers were loaded up with explosives, but no one noticed (ever seen a building wired for demolition?) Then the gov't had some flunkies fly passenger jets into these buildings. They then detonated their explosives to collapse the towers, without allowing fire fighters to evacuate everybody they could.

They then pretended to highjack 93, sent jets after it, then either shot it down or suspiciously called them off (depending upon what denier site you belong to). Then they shot a missile at the pentagon, which looked like a passenger plane that was hijacked.

Foreign gov't agents were in the know about this plot beforehand, but funnily enough no ones come forward with anything but circumstancial evidence. The most massive and succesful conspiracy ever carried out.

And all under the command of that great BOOB George Bush, the lefts favourite dummy. In his daytime job, he can't do anything right, but at night, in his secret cape he can change the world.

I wonder how you think it helps your case that a member of the US military believes the conspiracy theories? The US military is 1,000,000 strong, there are bound to be a few headcases in amongst them.