Dear Daggett,

You wrote: "Would you care to respond to my question put to the forum discussion "Why we Fight" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=3 ?:

"So, what makes you so sure that Islamist extremists. operating out of Afghanistan, were the principle perpetrators of 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings ... ?"

Please cite where I claimed that "Islamist extremists. operating out of Afghanistan, were the principle perpetrators of 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings"

I never beat my wife either.

david f asked, "Please cite where I claimed that 'Islamist extremists. operating out of Afghanistan, were the principle perpetrators of 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings'".

If that's not what you meant to imply when you referred to "Al Qaeda telling of their destruction of the World Trade Center", then please tell us what you did mean to imply.

Dear Daggett,

I mean to imply nothing more than what I said. I will cater no more to your paranoia.

david f wrote, "I mean to imply nothing more than what I said."

Well, it looks to me like you did. Didn't you also write:

"9/11 also killed a lot of people for no good reason. It was the product of unreasoning religious fanaticism. Unreasoning religious fanaticism is also stupid nonsense.

"The spirit of Muslims belonging to the umma (or Muslims united in the bonds of belief) to kill people they don't know because they are infidels to me is little different from the mateship bonding Australians to go out and kill people they don't know because their country is at war with the other people's country."

?

The fact remains that, whether or not that was your primary purpose, what you wrote reinforces the official account of 9/11, for which, as I have shown on the forum "Why do we fight" at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=3
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=4

... and elsewhere, none of its proponents have been willing to provide evidence.

---

In fact, david f is right to draw parallels between the operation to blow up Hill 60 and the project to destroy the three World Trade Center buildings.

However, the people who performed the latter are not the people that david f implied they were.

As anyone who looks at the image of the 'collapse' of the North Tower at:

http://cms.ae911truth.org/images/stories/explo2.jpg http://ae911truth.org

... with open eyes will be able to see, the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly destroyed with high explosives just as the German trenches at Hill 60 were destroyed with high explosives in 1917, as attested to on the day by live news reporters and in documentary statements from 118 members of the Fire Department of New York (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf).

Both projects would have been highly technical, although I would regard the motivations of those involved in the two to have been different.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Information on those likely to have perpetrated the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001 can be found in the four part article "Demolition Access To The WTC Towers" by 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan, listed below. Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriter Laboratories for publicly insisting that executives in that Corporation and in the United States Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) not lie about tests' findings as to the resistance against fire of Twin Towers' structural steel. The articles are:

"Good Riddance to the Big Lie: Kevin Ryan's 'Demolition Access ...' Lights the Shadows", an introduction by Don Paul at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html

"Part One - Tenants" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

"Part Two - Security" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html

"Part Three - Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html

"Part Four - Cleanup" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

The second part of the above article cites the Twin Towers design engineer:

"In a 1993 interview, [John] Skilling said that, in the event of an airliner crash into one of the towers, 'the building structure would still be there.' [36] One of Reiss' own staff members, Frank A. DeMartini, the Manager of WTC Construction, was videotaped explaining how the towers could have withstood multiple impacts from aircraft. [37]"

So the official explanation that each of the towers collapsed from the impact of a jet airliner and subsequent fires does not stand up.

---

david f wrote, "I will cater no more to your paranoia."

Suit yourself.

However, by my definition, paranoia is the state of mind that accepts imposts on our freedoms such as what Sydney residents endured during the September 2007 APEC summit, the security of which cost Australian taxpayers UA$167 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_Australia_2007#Criticism_and_public_response) to 'protect' us from a mythical global conspiracy of Islamist extremists.

---

FOOTNOTES

36. Eric Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, February 27, 1993, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

37. Jim Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters, 911Research.wtc7.net, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

It's ok daggett, I'll do the corrections for you.

Correction #1

>>The fact remains that, whether or not that was your primary purpose, what you wrote reinforces the official account of 9/11<<

Should read...

"The fact remains that, whether or not that was your primary purpose, what you wrote reflects the official account of 9/11"

There, that's better.

>>the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly destroyed with high explosives just as the German trenches at Hill 60 were destroyed with high explosives in 1917<<

Hmmm. You were a bit further off the rails here. Let's try...

"the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly not destroyed with high explosives. Simply compare them to the way the German trenches at Hill 60 were destroyed with high explosives in 1917"

Ah, that's more like it.

You see? A little more care, and you too could write sense.

>>Information on those likely to have perpetrated the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001 can be found in the four part article "Demolition Access To The WTC Towers" by 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan<<

Just a judicious tweak here and there, and we get...

"Wild speculation on those he thinks likely to have perpetrated the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001 can be found in the four part article "Demolition Access To The WTC Towers" by 9/11 conspiracy nerd Kevin Ryan"

Getting there, getting there.

You forgot the essential annotation to this one, though.

>>In a 1993 interview, [John] Skilling said that, in the event of an airliner crash into one of the towers, 'the building structure would still be there'.<<

You omitted to add "Shows how wrong some people can be, eh?"

Oh, and a quick brush-up on definitions wouldn't go astray either, daggett.

>>paranoia is the state of mind that accepts imposts on our freedoms such as what Sydney residents endured during the September 2007 APEC summit<<

No, not really. Paranoia might be behind the instigation of the draconian actions, but isn't a realistic description of the state of mind of one who accepts those measures.