There's no rush, daggett.

>>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.<<

You are only going to repeat yourself anyway.

If you can, use the time to contemplate the simple things.

Like means, motive and opportunity.

For "means", you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military to buy the silence of the hundreds of people who must have been involved, and a team of people whose talents certainly don't fit the profile of any of the government's actions in the past. And who are also prepared to have the deaths of innocent civilians on their consciences for the rest of their lives.

For "motive", you have nothing. No cogent reason whatsoever to kill thousands of fellow Americans in cold blood. And what exactly would be the motive behind a "demolition" of WTC7?

For "opportunity", well, you tell me. How was the US military involved in the various hijackings themselves, and how did they arrange the timing with such precision that they believed they could "collapse" a building with explosives?

I'm sure you will come back with another set of "Pericles' lies". But that will only be the smokescreen that tries to hide the fact that you have no intelligible response to any of these three basic questions.

Note how Pericles dodges nearly all of the substantive points of my most recent posts by repeating his tired, worn and clichéd lies:

"If you can, use the time to contemplate the simple things.

"Like means, motive and opportunity."

... as if all three have not already been dealt with abundantly by me in this forum before.

The hundreds of billions were not mythical, Pericles. Many of the records were conveniently destroyed by Flight 75 or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.

If you want to pretend that you believe that I would make this up, then others should bear in mind that you have yet to substantiate a single allegation against me of dishonesty, where I have substantiated a number of allegations against you.

Pericles: << I'm sure you will come back with another set of "Pericles' lies". >>

daggett: << Note how Pericles dodges nearly all of the substantive points of my most recent posts by repeating his tired, worn and clichéd lies >>

Exactly according to script! Too funny.

Come now daggett. Playing the "wounded sensibilities" card does not suit you.

>>If you want to pretend that you believe that I would make this up...<<

There, there, I wouldn't do that. That would be hurtful.

Let me reassure you, I am absolutely 100% positive you haven't made up a single word of it. You sensitive flower, you.

Happy now?

All I have done is to drill holes into the theories that you have cut 'n' pasted from conspiracy web sites. Often using precisely the same cut 'n' paste methodology myself, since I have absolutely no training as a fireman. Or an architect.

But I do recognize a nonsense conspiracy theory when I see it.

Bush/Cheney/Rice etc. etc blah blah.

Rot.

Mind you, to enlist a bunch of thoroughly traumatised people to say vague stuff like "it sounded like an explosion", and use this as "evidence" that a relative of George Bush arranged for a bunch of lift mechanics to plant hundreds of tonnes of explosives around a building?

That's very sick.

>>...then others should bear in mind that you have yet to substantiate a single allegation against me of dishonesty, where I have substantiated a number of allegations against you.<<

If it makes you feel any better, I freely accept that you may honestly believe all this guff.

I just happen to think that belief is mistaken, and out of phase with the reality in which we live.

As for your allegations of my "dishonesty", I think they may safely be discarded as pure emotion.

"Y'a got nuthin'", and you know it.

>>The hundreds of billions were not mythical, Pericles. Many of the records were conveniently destroyed by Flight 75 or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.<<

Why, of course. How convenient.

But if they were destroyed, how do you know they ever existed?

Sorry, silly me - they must have been incriminating, otherwise they wouldn't have been deliberately destroyed, would they?

What was I thinking.

However much you bluster, though, you still haven't remotely addressed means, motive or opportunity.

Pericles,

No-one's playing 'wounded sensibilities'.

I am just pointing out that you know perfectly well that I don't make things up. That you continue to imply otherwise is yet another example of your dishonesty.

On the other forum, you attempted to deny (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330#83388) the catastrophic effects of the WTC dust on the health of the 9/11 First Responders, and here you are now are attempting to denying the well-understood fact that there were hundreds of billions unaccounted for in the Pentagon Budget a fraction of which could easily have been used to fund the demolition of the WTC Towers:

"For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military ..."

In fact, according to Donald Rumsfeld, himself, on 10 September 2001, the figure is even higher. It could be as high as $2.3 trillion.

See "The War On Waste
Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion" of http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
8'57" YouTube video "McKinney Grills Rumsfeld" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

If Pericles was honest, he would have conceded some time ago my point that US military and intelligence agencies easily had the means to accomplish all of the 9/11 false flag terrorist attacks including the demolitions of the three WTC buildings.

Ah, there you are daggett.

You still don't get it, do you.

>>I am just pointing out that you know perfectly well that I don't make things up. That you continue to imply otherwise is yet another example of your dishonesty.<<

I absolutely accept that you don't make things up. You just cut 'n' paste stuff that other people make up.

>>you attempted to deny the catastrophic effects of the WTC dust<<

Here's what I wrote:

"The URL you pointed me to described one death from cancer, and three others who have tumours. Nothing whatsoever links these sicknesses to 9/11. Nothing at all that supports the headline 'Hundreds of 9/11 first responders die of cancer', or that '85 per cent of them are suffering from lung diseases'."

I didn't need to deny anything, because you provided no facts to deny.

And this old chestnut.

>>In fact, according to Donald Rumsfeld, himself, on 10 September 2001, the figure is even higher. It could be as high as $2.3 trillion.<<

Here's the actual speech itself. Not someone's interpretation of what he might have said.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

"We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

He was talking about the deficiencies in their IT systems, not about missing funds.

>>If Pericles was honest, he would have conceded some time ago my point that US military and intelligence agencies easily had the means to accomplish all of the 9/11 false flag terrorist attacks including the demolitions of the three WTC buildings.<<

If you were honest with yourself, you'd realize that you are talking through your hat.