Pericles,

I think my last post made perfect sense the way it was, thank you very much.

In regard to your claim that "the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly not destroyed with high explosives", I don't believe that you have responded to my point on the forum discussion "Why do we fight" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=3

Here it is again:

If we accept that this:

http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is_single1105/is300248.jpg

... is an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives, then why isn't this:

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

... even more so an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives?

JMCC,

The only movie I could find on BigPond Movies was Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911".

That was quite a good movie, but it did not directly challenge the 9/11 myth.

"9/11 Press for Truth" about the four 9/11 widows, known as "The Jersey Girls", who forced President George W Bush to hold the 9/11 Commission, has to be one of the best documentaries ever.

The way it showed how supposedly professional full-time paid journalists failed to connect the dots and how it had to be left to unpaid activists to do that work is applicable to a large range of other issues, besides 9/11, that the media also fails to report on adequately.

Daggett

the DVD's available from Bigpond are:

Loose Change
9/11 Misteries - Demolition
The Secret History of 9/11
9/11 The Filmakers Commenorative DVD Edition
National Geographic - Inside 9/11

Hmmm. Very persuasive, daggett. No wonder I didn't go near it back then when you posted it first.

How does it go again? You first.

>>If we accept that this:

http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is_single1105/is300248.jpg

... is an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives, then why isn't this:

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

... even more so an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives?<<

Refuting such a spellbinding argument is always a challenge, but I'll try.

Here goes.

If we accept this...

http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/pictures-of-butterflies/pictures-of-butterflies-3.jpg

...as a picture of a butterfly my mum found in her back garden last Tuesday, then why isn't this...

http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/pictures-of-butterflies/pictures-of-butterflies-1.jpg

...even more so an image of a butterfly that my mum found in her back garden last Tuesday?

The reason is, of course, that despite all appearances to the contrary, this one was caught in the rainforests of Brazil, transported on the back of a donkey to the Peruvian port of Callao, shipped on a tramp steamer to Shanghai, thence overland to Moscow, where it was brutally put to death before being pinned on the Kremlin wall.

I've always admired your logic, daggett.

Simply awesome.

Pericles:
I tried your link (http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/pictures-of-butterflies/pictures-of-butterflies-1.jpg) and got this:
"Error 403 - Forbidden
You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges."
What is your Mum, or that butterfly, trying to hide?

I started this thread to contrast attitudes towards 9/11 and Hill 60. Unfortunately the discussion has degenerated into an argument over a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11. Is there anyone who would care to make a case that the diggers didn't actually blow up Hill 60? Was it really a plot by the Australian government or the King of Italy?