Those who insist that those who reject the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks have a psychological predisposition to embrace each and every conspiracy theory, should read the words of David Ray Griffin in the introduction to the New Pearl Harbour" at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf

"Until the spring of 2003, I had not looked at any of the
evidence. I was vaguely aware that mere were people, at
least on the Internet, who were offering evidence against
the official account of 9/11 and were suggesting a
revisionist account,according to which US officials were
complicit. But I did not take the time to try to find their
websites. I had been studying the history of American
expansionism and imperialism quite intensely since 9/11,
so I knew that the US government had fabricated 'incidents'
as an excuse to go to war several times before. Nevertheless,
although the thought did cross my mind that 9/11 might
likewise have been arranged, I did not take this possibility
seriously. It seemed to me simply beyond belief that the Bush
administration -- /even/ the Bush administration -- would do
such a heinous thing. I assumed that those who were claiming
otherwise must be 'conspiracy theorists' in the derogatory
sense in which this term is usually employed -- which means,
roughly, 'crackpots.' I knew that if they were right, this
would be very important. But I was so confident that they
must be wrong -- that their writings would consist merely of
loony theories based on wild inferences from dubious evidence
-- that I had no motivation to invest time and energy in
tracking these writings down. I fully sympathize, therefore,
with the fact that most people have not examined the evidence.
Life is short and the list of conspiracy theories is long, and
we all must exercise judgment about which things are worth our
investment of time. I had assumed that conspiracy theories about
9/11 were below the threshold of possible credibility."

Of course, he eventually changed his mind in regard to 9/11, but that was still four years before I properly woke up to what had happened.

Dagget,

You say >> Paul.L earlier tried to imply that the fact that the building is taller than any other building that has so far been destroyed by controlled demolition and the unconventional order in which the floors collapsed make it extremely unlikely that those who had planned the demolition could have caused the buildings to collapse in the neat, symmetrical way in which they did and into dust.

No I didn’t dagget. No wonder you are having so much trouble with this issue. I merely rebutted YOUR point that “ WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day IN WAYS THAT LOOKED EXACTLY LIKE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS”. I merely pointed out that they did NOT look like controlled demolitions. I have posted a video showing more than half a dozen ACTUAL demolitions jobs on tall buildings, in all of which
1) the sound of the explosives are louder than the actual building collapse
2) the explosive flashes are unmistakable
3) the flashes occur well before the building starts moving
4) the demolitions all cut the building columns at ground level and collapsed the building from the bottom up.

That point, at least, has been made without doubt. The mere fact that you no longer use the “they looked like controlled demolitions” is evidence enough.

I have posted photos clearly showing that the WTC were not crumbled into dust. You have offered nothing to rebut that. Furthermore, controlled demolitions don’t explode buildings into dust either. Dagget continually shows he is well out of his area of expertise (wherever that is). Demolitions use the minimum explosive necessary, by “surgically” cutting columns and allowing gravity and the buildings inertia to carry out the demolition. Cutting charges don’t push buildings anywhere, they take out the supports from underneath the building. To explode the whole building into dust would take a small nuclear weapon, and the material would have been sprayed for kilometers.

tbc

Cont,

Real engineers explain the collapse.

>>”The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.”

This is a peer reviewed structural engineering journal. If you knew anything about scientific journals you would know that articles are not just accepted without the results to back up their claims. Furthermore, scientists make a habit of testing the work of their colleagues to see if it is correct. When it is not, they publish themselves and the process continues. That is REAL academia. Not half smart money grubbing liars who can and will say anything to make the facts fit their pet theory. Or are the whole worlds structural engineers in on the conspiracy as well?

You say >> “Similarly, if Paul.L insists that the mere burning aviation fuel is capable of having so thoroughly caused the destruction of virtually all of the concrete and steel inside the twin towers … “

No dagget, I never said that. Clearly you are now flailing around looking for any excuse to hold onto your pet prejudice.

You say >> Paul.L's argument is No controlled demolition has apparently occurred in that way before. Therefore it could not have been a controlled demolition.

No dagget, you really are reaching now aren’t you. Why don’t you give up if you’re going to get silly about this?

A proposed discussion topic "Who is really behind the bloody sectarian killings in Iraq?" starting with the following has just been rejected:

In another discussion on "Winning the War in Iraq" it was written by a critic of the war:

"Since then the coalition forces have been used to stop the stupid Iraqis from killing each other over religous differences." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052#42742)

Elsewhere (I can't locate it) it was claimed that Iraqis themselves were responsible for more killings than the occupying forces and that, by comparison, the outrages at Abu Ghraib were minor.

Up until recently, even I did not challenge this view, although I pointed out that the outrageous anti-democratic policies of Paul Bremer of privatisation and impoverishment of the Iraqi population at the start of the occupation had probably started the chain reaction.

In fact it seem likely that many of the bloody sectarian attacks may well have been 'false flag' attacks, similar in a sense to what many believe the 9/11 attack to have been (see discussion of "9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0). I had totally missed the significance of a story of September 2005 "British 'Undercover Soldiers' Caught driving Booby Trapped Car":

Why were undercover British "soldiers" wearing traditional Arab headscarves
firing at Iraqi police?

The incident took place just prior to a major religious event in Basra.

The report suggests that the police thought the British soldiers looked
"suspicious". What was the nature of their mission?

Occupation forces are supposed to be collaborating with Iraqi authorities.
Why did British Forces have to storm the prison using tanks and armoured
vehicles to liberate the British undercover agents?

"British forces used up to 10 tanks "supported by helicopters" to smash
through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen."

Was there concern that the British "soldiers" who were being held by the
Iraqi National Guard would be obliged to reveal the nature and objective
of their undercover mission?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

A report of Al Jazeera TV ... suggests that the riots directed against
British military presence were motivated because the British undercover
soldiers were planning to explode the booby trapped car in the centre of
Basra: ...
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972)

The response from the moderator was:

Your general discussion thread entitled "Who is really behind the
bloody sectarian killings in Iraq?" has been rejected by the moderator.

I can't see this going anywhere that the previous thread didn't.

As the "Who is winning the Iraq War" thread has been closed, it seems that the moderator has decided on our behalf that all that needs to be discussed about the Iraq war has been discussed.

I don't know about others, but I call this censorship.

If anyone else disagrees with this decision as strongly as I do, I suggest they let the moderator know and also draw it to the attention of others that OLO is no longer the free and open discussion forum that it would have them believe that it is.

---

I note Paul.L's recent and rather unimaginative personal attack upon Forrest Gump. (I will deal with Paul.L's more recent hair-splitting effort some other time.)

Does this mean that those others on this forum who have not yet come out and stated their agreement with the case of the 9/11 Truth movement can expect to be similarly attacked when and if they decide to do so?

---

I agree with FG, that the discussion is barely beginning. However, as this forum will have reached 263 posts with this post, it may be time to start another, say "9/11 Truth continued". As another request of mine has just been rejected, someone else should consider doing it for me.

Griffin claims it to be anomalous that three aircraft that should have been intercepted and shot down were not, whilst one, Flight 93, that should not have been after being re-seized by passengers, was.

United Airlines Flight 93 is claimed to have departed Newark 41 minutes late, at 8:42 AM.

Had this aircraft departed on time, and its flight path and hijacking timetable been the same as was revealed by events up until its re-seizure by passengers, but without such re-seizure occurring, at what time would it have been expected to have been crashed into the Capitol building?

I get the impression, although it seems Griffin does not ask this question in 'The New Pearl Harbour', that the answer might have been 'around 9:40 AM'.

Since there was always going to be a risk of the news of the 8:46 AM and 9:03 AM WTC kamikazes spreading in the way it actually did to Flight 93 passengers, by mobile phone conversations, and since the hijack would have been effected by 8:38 AM if the flight had been on time, there was always going to be a risk of a passenger uprising on this flight under the spur of a suspicion of it by then being considered to be on a suicide mission.

Such assessment of risk to hypothetical orchestraters of a coup could well explain the fortuitous presence of a fighter aircraft in the vicinity of Flight 93's flightpath unconnected with any other scrambling, or failure to scramble, of interceptors in the face of an emergency of then unknown extent. The shooting down of Flight 93 may always have been a 'Plan B' in antipation of any passenger uprising occurring and succeeding. It would require no collusion in any planned coup on the part of the fighter pilot involved: a shootdown order was standing operational procedure and only to be eventually expected in event of interception of a hijacked flight.

A successful 9:40 AM crash into the at that time unevacuated Capitol would likely have crippled the US legislature.