James Sinnamon/daggett/cacofonix/et al: << Do as you wish, C J Morgan/Bugsy, but don't assume that I will be wasting any more of my time engaging with you. >>

That's fine by me, James - but don't assume that because you feel entitled to break the forum rules by using several sock puppet accounts that I do too.

I have no idea who Bugsy is in real life, but he usually makes a lot more sense than you and doesn't need to to tell lies to do so.

To those who suggest that no possible motive for figures in the U.S. government to commit such a crime against their own poeople, I refer them to reasons 32-34 of "The top 40 reasons to doubt the officialstory of September 11, 2001" at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

32) Attacking the Constitution
a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

33) Legal Trillions
9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

34) Plundered Trillions?
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

I refer them also to Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". Whilst Naomi Klein has not personally taken a stance on the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement, abundant abundant evidence of the existence of motives for the attacks can be found in its pages.

Chapters 14 to 20 show how wealthy corporations and in some cases U.S. government figures personally including Donald Rumsfeld, profited masively at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer and from countries conquered by the U.S. following the 9/11 attacks.

If 9/11 is/was an inside job.. a false flag operation....

would anyone like to have a dabble into the 'One World'/New World Order scenario which certain high profile and very very rich Americans seem to think we need ? :)

If it was not what it is purported to be (An Al Qaeda/Islamist attack) then the other option is rather more scary.

Come on people, we all know the American government ALWAYS tells the 100% truth, acts only for the good of all humanity and is incorruptible.

Gee, I believe EVERY word they say about 9/11. They're such good guys! Just ask 'em, they'll tell ya!

C J Morgan/Bugsy,

I note you have dodged answering the question in a previous post, so I will ask it again: "... is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off?"

Anyway, my other question was: Why should I care what you think?

The fact that you have failed to provide any substance to back up your assertion that "this 9/11 conspiracy crap is completely off the wall" (in other words that you uncritically accept the US government's explanation) would confirm that personal attacks such as this are intended to divert people's attention from this fact.

---

If there happen to be any structural enginers around, they should have a look at

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/investigation.html
# The total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 where the largest failures of engineered steel structures in history.

* No one anticipated such buildings could fall from fires.
* Fires have never leveled steel-framed buildings.
* Only severe earthquakes have caused total collapse.

# If official explanation is correct then:

* Existing engineering theory is invalidated. A new phenomenon -- progressive collapse -- has to be invented.
* No steel-frame building is safe -- Isolated fires can cause total collapse.
* Billions of dollars in retrofitting will be required.
* Firefighters should no longer enter burning buildings.

Then they should have a look at examples other far more severe high-rise fires in which the buildings were NOT pulverised and flattened at

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.html

Check out "Some Proofs of Demolition in regard to the twin towers at: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/proofs.html

1. The towers' concrete was pulverized in the air.
2. The steel superstructures of the towers provided no more resistance to the falling rubble than air.
3. The expansion rate of the dust clouds produced by the collapses indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitational energy.
4. The South Tower's top shattered before falling into intact structure.

So, can anyone show me where these specific arguments have been refuted?

I for one would like to know why anyone would need to use more than one user name? Do you decide that your reputation is so poor that you need a new user name.

Personally, I, and I imagine MOST people with any integrity, respond to the ideas posted and not to the person posting. I certainly have more than once unintentionally offended a poster whom I had previously had cordial agreement with, when they ventured a view I am vehemently opposed to. I generally try and comment on the ideas rather than the person.

I can think of a few people who may be typecast, but they can do something about that if they want. However, I'm suggesting that ANYONE who uses more than one user name immediately revert to their old username and apologise to the rest of us, or face more outing, CJ Morgan style.

Perhaps those in the know might even start a list somewhere of those people who are using more than one user name. A wall of shame.