Kanga,

You have misunderstood my point regarding the WMD’s in Iraq. My point was that IF you are going to go to the extreme lengths of killing thousands of your own people in order to produce a casus belli, why on earth would you significantly damage this narrative of victimhood you have crafted, by being honest about not finding WMD in Iraq?

Finding WMD in Iraq after 9/11 would have immeasurably strengthened the hand of these 9/11 conspirators Among many other things, it would have undoubtedly meant that support for an attack on Iran would have been forthcoming. The NeoCon doctrine of premption would have been lauded as good policy and the Republicans wouldn’t be in the mess they are in today.

You say >>” In this paradigm, any Muslim nation would have difficulty in asserting a right to manage its own affairs if the ‘international community, the US, and global commerce, deemed it to be harbouring terrorists.’

Are you seriously suggesting that they planned 9/11 so they could oppress muslims?

Frankly, in this day and age, when the president can’t keep a blow job secret, there is just NO WAY, that such a conspiracy could be kept quiet.

Not ONE of the thousands of people who would’ve had to be in the know, has since become disillusioned and confessed? How is that possible?

NO WAY

Paul.L wrote, "... what you don’t realize is that NONE of them believed they were experiencing actual bombs."

Were you able to read their minds or do you have evidence for this assertion?

Paul.L wrote, "The quotes are ALL taken out of context."

Why not provide concrete examples of how the quotes I gave above were taken out of context?

In regard to the footage of the bomb hoax at the Stuyvesant School incuded in "9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw, it appears foolish on the part of the producers of that broadcast to have included that. Whether it was an honest mistake or deliberate, I can't be sure, but I would, nevertheless challenge Paul.L to show how the rest of the broadcast, particularly the quotes I have transcribed are out of context.

Having said that, having a bomb hoax, shortly after the terrorist attacks drawing emergency workers away from the WTC, seems yet another of many curious coincidences on top of the 54,000,000 to one probability that the official 9/11 Commission Report gives to the complete failure of the whole of the American air defence system that made possible the success of those attacks.

I would also challenge Paul.L to tell me what part of the 9:51 minute interview "HIGHLIGHTS : Interview with John Schroeder 911 FIREMAN" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo, which further confirms what I have written above, is out of context.

---

Paul.L wrote, "Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut. ... Compare this with the close up of the twin towers collapse, which clearly collapses, starting at the impact point, one floor at a time. ..."

This is another of those recurring non-arguments of Paul.L's which prove absolutely nothing.

If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds thought, I am sure it would have occurred to him that there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please.

Paul.L, I note you failed to comment on the explosion as evidenced by a large bright orange flash partially obscured by black smoke shown at 7:00 minutes into the abovementioned broadcast at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw , long after all of the fuel should have burnt. Curiously that explosion occurred at the precise moment and precise location that the tower began to collapse.

How do you plan to explain away this?

---

Here's Graham Young's latest response to my complaints about the disruption caused by some 'contributors' to this forum:

"I didn't respond because it really does deserve a response. It's pretty
obvious that I publish a lot of material that I personally disagree with and
I deal with everything fairly.

"If you think the forum is biased then perhaps you should find another one.

"I don't have limitless time to deal with baseless complaints, so frequently
I do not respond to them."

Dagget,

I notice you didn’t respond to

1) the video which EXPOSES the LIES and the LIARS in the so-called truth movement. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo

2) my point that building aren’t pushed anywhere by explosive cutting charges or thermite.

3) my point about the missing “molten steel” and why no one saw any cooled puddles of steel?

4) my point about how the exterior beams were cut without the hundreds of cameras catching it.

There are many more but I can’t be bothered going further back. Every time I make a point you can’t explain you move on. As if it never happened, yet when I don’t answer one of your silly questions you get whiny.

You attempt to cover for the LIARS who made the video, “Absolute Proof” is pathetic. They knew exactly what they were doing. AND YOU KNOW IT, Just rewatch the video.

John Schroeder is the ONLY first responder in the group of 118 witnesses referred to by Graeme McQueen, (that you didn’t even realize you were quoting) to actually suggest that the explosion sounds, might be explosives.

After watching the video provided, Schroeder is clearly NOT a complicated man, and I think that is putting it nicely. His contention that he was thrown about like a rag doll on the 26th Floor when the second plane hit is flat out contradicted by the evidence. There is NO WAY he and his crew had suited up, left their base, got to the trade centre, unpacked their gear and walked up to the 23rd floor in 17 minutes. What he was actually experiencing was the south tower coming down which was actually at 9.59am (his timeline is out by about 56 minutes). He has admitted that he had great difficulty in accurately remembering the events of that day. See http://911stories.googlepages.com/9%3A59%3Athesouthtowercollapses

Schroeder doesn’t understand how people were burned on the ground floor when the jet hit the 80th. See the explosions from jet fuel 15 seconds into this video and realize that jet fuel obeys the laws of gravity and would have poured down the elevator shafts.etc http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fEukLepgUPM

tbc

cont

As for McQueen and his 118 witnesses that you have referred to

>> MacQueen states, "The oral histories show that many people who originally thought they had witnessed critical explosions were later persuaded that they had not, and it appears that the pancake hypothesis was the main alternative they were offered." The oral histories show no such thing. MacQueen offers no evidence – none – to support this assertion. Like Jason Bermas of Loose Change, MacQueen is content to publicly state that because all these FDNY first responders do NOT support the conspiracist claims, they all must have succumbed to "persuasion" to change their minds about what killed 343 of their brothers and friends and to never speak of it again.

You say >> If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds … there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please.

If you had half a brain you would know that building demolition occur with a SET sequence of initiations. You can’t just explode things in any order you please and expect the building to collapse in an orderly manner. You really have NO IDEA about any of this do you. Have a look at the science of building demolition before you start shooting your mouth off.

I watched the “south tower coming down” video. Tell me where are the supposed explosions which started the first floors collapsing? Why is it only the lower floors that have “so called” explosions occurring? See here for evidence of floors collapsing into one another http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pancake.jpg/pancake-full;init:.jpg
It collapsed 4 stories of concrete and steel into a three foot high lump. It comes from the site which rebuts ALL of McQueens claims http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

Re comment by Forrest Gumpp on electoral fraud - quoted below:
"Elections are about power, and there are some persons who will stop at nothing to obtain power. I have posted this link earlier in this thread, but I think it may have been effectively buried amongst other links. It is about the US electronic voting system. Since one picture is better than a thousand words, here are a number of pictures illustrating aspects of that eminently fraudable system: http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm . One at least relates to 9/11."

Proof of gross electoral fraud is rapidly materialising. This has great relevance to the 9/11 debate as it:
- is itself an activity many would find not possible to conceive of as being able to be perpetrated by the persons and positions being accused of it'.

- demonstrates that ambition knows no bounds or borders when adequately inflamed and intoxicated.

Check these video excerpts:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/145.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/465.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/466.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/467.html
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/271.html

So where should cynicism end?
In reality or in naivete?