Pericles, I'd say that Arjay and other conspiracy nuts are simply
not aware, how profitable the conspiracy business can really be.

There was a report of Bloomberg, who is having a go at Wall St, for
making too much money. It turns out that Moore himself has grossed
over 325 million $ from movies, books, dvds, over the last 20 years,
with a great deal more to come from his latest venture.

Moore portrays the anti establishment dude, but with that kind
of earnings pouring in the door, no frigging wonder he does it!

Consumers lap it up, so its clearly a highly profitable business to
be in. You only need to convince 1% and you are in the money.

The evidence is there Yabby and you and Pericles refuse to view it.New visuals reveal the truth.How did they get up to 100 tonnes of explosives in 3 building? Well perhaps we should ask Marvin Bush George's brother who owned the security company that controlled security at the WTC.
The link does work Pericles.If you cannot find it just google Prof Niels Harrit and Nano-thermite.

John Bursill runs the Aust arm of aetruth.http://www.ae911oz

You genuinely don't get it, do you Arjay.

>>The evidence is there Yabby and you and Pericles refuse to view it.<<

I have visited all the sites you have linked to, even when you are too slack to give an accurate URL.

>>The link does work Pericles<<

Go back and check: http://www.aetruth.org/ does not work.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3070#72462

Accurate. Factual. Intellectually rigourous. Objective.

Words you need to become familiar with, Arjay, because right now, you are none of these.

>>How did they get up to 100 tonnes of explosives in 3 building?Well perhaps we should ask Marvin Bush George's brother who owned the security company that controlled security at the WTC<<

You see, you are simply inventing a new conspiracy theory - that Bush was involved in setting explosives - to cover a massive hole in the original theory: that it is impossible to conceal the placement of the amount of explosives that are needed to support the demolition story.

Don't you understand how stupid this all is? Have you any concept of the complexity of the logistics to bring this off? It would require the story to be kept secret by literally thousands of people - any one of whom could be a multi-millionnaire overnight, just by appearing once on Letterman.

And quite frankly, from what we read about the security services in the US, I cannot see any of them - or all of them together - organizing an exercise this complex.

Didn't happen.

Get over it.

Find something useful to do with your time. Like trainspotting. Or collecting matchboxes.

My computer did a dummy spit.Try http://ae911truth.org/
The evidence is real,scientific and unable to be disproven by you Pericles or other professionals in the engineering/scientific world.Reinforced concrete steel buildings have never before come down in fires raging for 24hrs let alone just one.

There are just too many anomolies that make the official story totally implausible.See for yourself.

Ok Arjay, now you can go back and correct this one.

>>John Bursill runs the Aust arm of aetruth.http://www.ae911oz <<

I'm sure you'll get the hang of it soon..

But you need to stop exaggerating, even though I know you only do it to hide the fact that you, too, know deep down that you are perpetuating a nonsense.

>>The evidence is real,scientific and unable to be disproven by you Pericles or other professionals in the engineering/scientific world<<

Of course I can't disprove it, in exactly the same manner as you cannot prove it. We both rely upon the work of others.

You select as your heroes those who write about various ways in which, in their fantasy, 9/11 might have been the work of anyone but Islamic terrorists. From the CIA, to aliens from the planet Zog.

I on the other hand read the work of people who identify the massive holes in the "evidence" put forward by these attention-seekers.

And as far as nano-thermite is concerned, these holes are simply enormous.

As I mentioned in a previous post on the same topic:

>>The evidence that nanothermite was present in samples of dust taken from the vicinity of the towers is irreducibly vague. It talks about the presence of aluminium and iron oxide in samples, as if the only way their presence could be justified was in nano-thermite form. Conveniently ignoring that the building contained thousands of tons of aluminium, and significant amounts of rust, simply because it was... a building. Also completely ignoring the fact that a residue of "spent" thermite is barium nitrate. None of which was found. Even by the conspiracy-dudes.<<

Tell me, do you simply ignore these observations because you don't like them?

I notice that you haven't actually refuted any of them, so I assume they just don't register in your consciousness. Like those South Sea Islanders who reportedly "couldn't see" the sailing ships in the bay, because their brains couldn't process the information.

Life is interesting enough, Arjay, without needing to spice it up with your own personal version of an airport novel.

Barium Nitrate cannot possible be a residue of Nanao-Thermite.Nano thermite is Al fe2 o3 or one aluminium atom 2 iron atoms and 3 oxygen atoms.There are also minor elements such as sulphur,magnesium used but how can 2 unrelated elements[ie nitrogen and barium] suddenly appear as the result of a chemical reaction?[I did chemistry at school]

Unreacted nano thermite was found by Niels Harrit and this in his view was the "loaded gun" This was a highly sophistocated explosive that should not be in any building.How do you explain that Pericles?

By the way Ron Paul now has 294 Congressmen supporting his bill to Audit the Fed.The momentum of change is overcoming you Pericles.Do you have time to jump ships?