Not quite as strong as your usual come-backs, daggett. But equally mendacious.

>>Pericles, how is my own stance on 9/11 different from those I named, who lost loved ones and family members on 9/11?<<

Simple.

You are trading on their misfortune for some weird form of self-gratification.

Theirs is the natural reaction of people whose lives have been fundamentally changed by the events of 9/11.

Can you spot the difference?

>>using the "the suffering of these people" in order to justify wars to grab oil and gas from people falsely accused of having caused suffering of these people is not "trade[ing] upon the suffering of these people", not "inordinately cruel" and not "despicable"?<<

By referring to "justify[ing] wars to grab oil and gas from people falsely accused of having caused suffering", you are making the rather outrageous assumption that your analysis of the situation is accurate.

Since it is all in your imagination, the accusation doesn't hold up, for a millisecond. It's like the defence attorney telling the jury that he rests his entire case on the fact that "I believe my client, therefore you must acquit", while at the same time revealing that he has never actually been to law school.

And I am endlessly fascinated by the way you keep bringing up random snippets, for which you have patently failed to provide admissible evidence...

>>...the horror of death by cancer or chronic respiratory problems as a result of Condoleezza Rice telling me the WTC dust was safe to breathe<<

I know, it is the habit of you conspiracy-fetishists to practice this form of deception. But is does become somewhat tedious after a while.

>>So, really all those pampered anti-Vietnam-war and anti-Iraq-war protestors should have stayed home<<

Comparing your conspiracy theory over 9/11 with the Vietnam war isn't even worthy of comment. The fact that you cannot see the difference speaks volumes.

>>Also, Pericles, I am still waiting for you to either confirm or deny...<<

Enjoy the wait, daggett. It isn't going to make the slightest difference to your credibility.

Pericles wrote, "Enjoy the wait, daggett. ..."

In other words, Pericles has refused to confirm whether or not he agrees with two straightforward statements, the first of which is:

"That life cannot possibly imitate art and art cannot possibly imitate life."

At this point of time I can't think of anyone I know who would not hesitate to say that, of course, that statement is ridiculous.

Dose anyone here dispute that statement is ridiculous?

But Pericles can't bring himself to say that.

Why not?

Because his whole argument depends upon it.

The hypothesis of the 9/11 Truth Movement of people having gained access to the WTC Towers in order to plant the explosives with the collusion of the WTC security and the WTC managers is impossible because it is like a movie script. (Which one, I don't know, but I don't remember anything like that featuring in any of the "Die Hard" movies.)

Because it is like a movie script it therefore necessarily follows that it could not possibly have happened in the real world.

That was Pericles' sole excuse for refusing to discuss any of the evidence, for example in http://ae911truth.org

At least that was his excuse.

Since then, his excuse appears to have morphed into simply that he claims to have looked at all the evidence on http://ae91truth.org and has deemed it to be fallacious or insubstantial, but refuses to provide even one example.

Whatever his excuse, people should know better than just to accept Pericles' word.

Interesting conclusion daggett.

>>Whatever his excuse, people should know better than just to accept Pericles' word.<<

I haven't, anywhere, suggested that people should "accept my word". I have merely responded to the more outlandish of your claims, that some form of Bush/Cheney/Rice power pack was responsible for the planning and perpetration of 9/11.

I fully expect people to take a look - as I have - at the weird and wonderful scenarios that are imagined in the conspiracy-nut web sites, and come to their own conclusions.

You, on the other hand, seem to insist that if anyone disagrees with you, they must by definition be - now, what was the phrase, ah yes - a "model citizen of the New World Order".

Whatever that might mean.

Your debating technique seems to have been honed in the fine tradition of evasive politicians. Which number, it would appear, you have ambition to grace.

You would probably do extremely well. Especially in Queensland.

>>"Life cannot possibly imitate art and art cannot possibly imitate life.". At this point of time I can't think of anyone I know who would not hesitate to say that, of course, that statement is ridiculous.<<

If it makes you feel any happier, I will agree with your - somewhat broad - generalization. But since it is essentially meaningless, it cannot prove or disprove anything.

No doubt you will now claim this as solid evidence that your fable is somehow supportable. That's the kind of politician you aspire to be, I guess, so it's a good idea to get in some practice.

But reality will one day catch up with you. The problem will be, whether you recognize it when it hits.

So, Pericles finally concedes that life can, indeed, imitate art.

In this case 'art' would the movie script (even if the precise movie script has not been named).

So, presumably the fact that the hypothesis, that Pericles repeatedly demanded I provide to explain how the necessary explosives could have been planted and wired, need not be excluded, after all, simply because he claims that that hypothesis is reminiscent of some unspecified movie script.

So, what, then, is Pericles' case?

No doubt, Pericles prefers to keep it secret or prefers to force others to wade back through all the forum spam he has dumped here to work it out for themselves, but for the benefit of others, I will restate my understanding of it:

1. That the rulers of the US stood to gain nothing from 9/11.

2. That the rulers of the US would not be capable of deliberately murdering so many of their own citizens in order to advance their geo-political agendas.

As I have pointed out in the other forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=26), the US Government lied to First Responders telling them that the toxic WTC dust was safe to breathe, knowing that it was not, so, for me, at least, it would not be such an inordinate leap of logic to conceive of those people conspiring to bring about the outrght murder of almost 3,000 of their citizens.

As the Project for the New American Century anticipated in (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf 850K), the "new Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 provided the pretext they needed to advance their geo-political and domestic agenda.

So, Pericles' case seems, to me, very flimsy indeed.

"Flimsy" is a very brave word to introduce here, daggett, given your latest re-positioning.

>>presumably the fact that the hypothesis, that Pericles repeatedly demanded I provide to explain how the necessary explosives could have been planted and wired, need not be excluded<<

You know as well as I do, that the logistics are impossible to put together, even in fiction, without requiring massive suspension of disbelief. You consistently decline to even try to think it through, beyond suggesting that the lift engineers were responsible.

You simply rely on the mantra "Bush... Cheney... Rice... CIA... black ops... New World Order..." as if this somehow proves everything conclusively.

>>what, then, is Pericles' case? No doubt, Pericles prefers to keep it secret ...<<

No secret, daggett.

No secret at all.

My case is that your conspiracy theory simply does not make the slightest sense.

Unless, of course, you believe that there is a New World Order, complete with a mega-rich "elite" of "globalists" and "banksters", a "cabal" that is who are secretly orchestrating a takeover of world government.

In which case, of course, it makes all the sense in the world.

But happily, you are right on a couple of points:

"1. That the rulers of the US stood to gain nothing from 9/11.

2. That the rulers of the US would not be capable of deliberately murdering so many of their own citizens in order to advance their geo-political agendas."

The rest is of course nonsense.

>>the US Government lied to First Responders telling them that the toxic WTC dust was safe to breathe, knowing that it was not,<<

Pure invention.

>>As the Project for the New American Century anticipated... the "new Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 provided the pretext they needed to advance their geo-political and domestic agenda<<

Again, a deliberate and mendacious reading of a perfectly straightforward conditional clause.

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

You are a piece of work, daggett, dredging up the same rubbish time after time.

Pericles wrote, "You know as well as I do, that the logistics are impossible to put together, even in fiction, without requiring massive suspension of disbelief. ..."

No I don't know, Pericles.

Where have you proven that if the management and security had colluded with those who had planted and wired the explosives, that it was logistically impossible?

Remember, Pericles, we have just established that arguing that this could be reminiscent of a movie plot does not constitute proof that it could not happen in real life.

I note Pericles claims that my claim that the US Government knowingly lied to the first responders is "pure invention".

---

Well, here are some of the lies to which I refer:

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe. ...
(ends)

So, unless that Pericles insists that Christie Whitman could not have known that the asbestos, heavy metals, PCB's, etc. present in the WTC dust has devastating consequences for health if ingested or inhaled, I would suggest that this was a deliberate lie that has condemned nearly all the First responders to ill health and thousands to death.

As First responder John Feal pointed out (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=25), this murderous lie came down the chain of command from the White House and through Condoleezza Rice to Christie Whitman.

(That, at least, deals with two of Pericles' more glaring fallacies to my own satisfaction. Others will need to spot the fallacies in the rest of Pericles' latest rant for themselves.)