I would have thought by now that you would have noticed the pattern here, daggett.

You do not intimidate me with your constant barrage of schoolyard taunts, nor can you persuade me that I have any obligation to offer an "explanation" to you, for anything.

>>Tell us how fire alone caused WTC 7 to collapse<<

I rely on the views of Fire Chiefs for this. What do you rely on?

>>Explain how (rather than simply assert that) it is logistically impossible... etc. etc.<<

If you had any notion of how management works, you would understand the sheer impossibility of your concept.

Or rather, the vague outlines of a concept. I forgot for a moment that you have already confirmed that

>>I cannot know all the precise details of HOW IT HAPPENED, because I wasn't there and no-one who witnessed HOW IT HAPPENED has, so far, told us HOW IT HAPPENED<<

Significantly, I hadn't asked you to relate what happened. Merely your idea of what might have happened, the people involved (let's call them "middle management, so as not to confuse them with the cabal of elites), and how the various events you claim occurred, came to pass.

Your explanation seems to get stuck in the groove "they are so powerful, they can do anything". Which is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, as my dear old granny used to say.

>>So, how does Professor Pericles account for the fact that it took that long for me to develop any 'need' to believe that President Bush had not told us the truth about 9/11?<<

I dunno.

Slow on the uptake?

It's ironic that Pericles now would have us believe that he is the one righteously defending himself against my unfair persecution of him, when I have been the person whom Pericles has pronounced paranoid, deluded and mentally unbalanced for having publicly argued my beliefs on the issue of 9/11, and when Pericles has also pronounced judgement on my personal life and my having stood as a candidate in elections, in a discussion that all this has little relevance to.

---

Pericles', yet again, refuses to explain how fire alone caused WTC 7 to collapse completely in 6.5 seconds:

"I rely on the views of Fire Chiefs for this. ..."

Yes, most impressive, Pericles. One paragraph (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=5) from retired Fire Department Chief (note, 'Chief' and not 'Chiefs', Pericles), Arthur Scheuermanone Fire Chief. Here it is again, in case, anyone has missed it:

"The wall-to-floor connection failures could have travelled down the building sides faster than 'free fall' times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above."

Pericles continues, "... What do you rely on?"

If Pericles needs to ask me what authorities I have cited to demonstrate that the official account of the 'collapse' is a lie, then he has not been reading my posts.

So, Pericles, why should we accept this single paragraph as the complete explanation of the 'collapse' of WTC 7, yet reject the detailed reasoning of, for example, Erik Lawyer, a firefighter of 22 years experience and founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth (http://firefightersfor911truth.org), in his 9 minute speech at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uor8NhUr_90 ?

Please explain what is wrong with Erik Lawyer's arguments.

And why should we accept the authority of that single paragraph of one retired Fire Chief and reject the authority of 1139 qualified architects and engineers, who are members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911thruth.org)?

---

Pericles wrote, "If you had any notion of how management works, you would understand the sheer impossibility of your concept."

In my own ignorance, I would have imagined that if I had, at my disposal, ... (tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) ... hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon's Budget, that I would have somehow been able to find the means to accomplish the following with the collusion of the management and security of the World Trade Centre:

1. placing all the explosives, detonators, wires etc., inside packaging that would conceal what was actually contained within.

2. taking all the necessary explosives into the basement of WTC 7 (and the twin towers too) on trucks and unloading them with fork lift trucks.

3. Making sure that those pallets were guarded 24x7 to keep prying eyes away until such time as they were put to use..

4. allowing several dozen people access to the structural columns under the pretence of doing lift maintenance, upgrades or repairs or other building maintenance with the collusion of the building managers and building security.

5. ensuring that no-one got close enough to be able to closely examine the explosives after they had been planted and wired.

(Could others please excuse the repetition (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=18), above, so that the slower learners amongst us may eventually catch on.)

However, it seems that Professor of Human Behavioural Psychology Pericles is now also an unchallenged authority on the dark and mysterious science of 'management'.

It turns out that 'managing' all of this would, after all, have been far too complex task, even, for the US military and Intelligence agencies with the hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal.

Presumably, even if they had a million trillion dollars, the iron laws of managerial science, which Pericles, alone amongst us, is capable of grasping, absolutely preclude the accomplishment of the 5 tasks I have listed.

---

Pericles wrote, "I [have merely asked] your idea of what might have happened, the people involved ..."

Who do you think you're fooling, Pericles?

I have repeatedly given you this.

When are you going to explain to the rest of us how this was all logistically impossible?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

I asked, "So, how does Professor Pericles account for the fact that it took that long for me to develop any 'need' to believe that President Bush had not told us the truth about 9/11?"

Then Professor Pericles 'responded':

"I dunno.

"Slow on the uptake?"

Indeed, Professor Professor Pericles.

Amazing how shallow your avowed curiosity about human psychology seems to be when you come up against facts which which your 'theories' cannot account for.

The simple fact is, Pericles, is that I never had any 'need' to believe that people in the administration of President George W Bush were capable of murdering 2,973 US residents.

About 6 years after 9/11, I found I could not any longer ignore the controversy surrounding 9/11. Around September 2008, that is, 8 years after 9/11, I began to seriously study the question with an open mind, not knowing in advance where the evidence would lead.

If Pericles were sincere in his professed curiosity about the psychology of "conspiracy theorists", then he would examine the forum "Winning the war in Iraq" for evidence of where, for me, the penny on 9/11 finally dropped at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2052&page=0#45868

This, in turn, led to me setting up the discussion forum "9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83

Before that point, I had never questioned the official account of 9/11 in public.

Of course, we know that Pericles is not at all sincere in his professed interest in human psychology. It is no more than a ploy to allow him to avoid having to acknowledge the evidence that is contrary to his case.

Why he spends so much of his time in order to uphold what he must know to be a lie, I cannot know for sure, but it is obvious that a lot of people around the world are paid to work full time to do what Pericles is now doing on Internet forums where the issue of 9/11 is raised.

We seem to be stuck in a "I must outlast Pericles" groove.

So let's see if there is anything new here... nope, same old same old.

>>Pericles now would have us believe that he is the one righteously defending himself against my unfair persecution of him<<

I don't consider this to be persecution, and I don't see myself as under attack. Relax.

>>Pericles has also pronounced judgement on my personal life and my having stood as a candidate in elections<<

Eh? Careful, old bean. That's sounding perilously close to paranoia.

>>why should we accept this single paragraph as the complete explanation of the 'collapse' of WTC 7, yet reject the detailed reasoning of, for example, Erik Lawyer, a firefighter of 22 years experience and founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth<<

Because the "detailed reasoning", as you call it, said nothing about how it might have happened. He was merely slagging off the official investigators, and by inference only, postulating that it must have been a "criminal cover-up"

The very "evidence" you present that suggests that WTC7 was demolished by explosions, is also "evidence" that says, categorically, that it cannot have been demolished by explosions.

How did they know in advance, for example, that there would be fires? Consider the implications of flying planes into two buildings with such precision that they cause just enough damage to a neighbouring building, to make its surreptitious demolition credible.

Or are you perhaps saying that there weren't any planes either?

You need to be far more specific in your "what might have happened" scenarios, daggett

>>if I had, at my disposal... hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon's Budget<<

Big "if". Especially as "unaccounted for" doesn't equate to "missing", except in the vocabulary of the conspiracist.

>>It turns out that 'managing' all of this would, after all, have been far too complex task, even, for the US military and Intelligence agencies with the hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal.<<

These are the people who forgot that the collapse of WTC7 shouldn't "look like a demolition", right?

Pericles wrote, "We seem to be stuck in a 'I must outlast Pericles' groove."

And you're not stuck in the 'I must outlast daggett' groove, Pericles?

Pericles wrote, "I don't consider this to be persecution, and I don't see myself as under attack. Relax."

Well you could have fooled me. You certainly didn't seem relaxed, for your part, when you wrote, "You do not intimidate me with your constant barrage of schoolyard taunts, ..."

Anyway, I will resume some time later with the tedious chore of pulling apart the sophistry that you keep pouring into this forum, but not at this very minute.