You can split hairs as much as you like, Pericles, but the fact remains that on the other forum, you:

1. attempted to deny the catastrophic effects that breathing in the toxic dust of the 'collapsed' WTC Towers had on the health of the First Responders;

2. denied Condoleezza Rice's culpability for the lies told to the First Responders that led them to believe that they could safely work at Ground Zero without protective masks or protective clothing, and, instead, implicitly accepted the scapegoating of Christie Whitman as the person solely responsible for the plight of the First Responders;

3. misrepresented the views of First Responder John Feal whom you hypocritically and disingenuously described as "a thoroughly decent person, with honourable and selfless motives".

I invite others to read the forum for themselves at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=29(on which Pericles appears to have lost his voice) to form their own judgement.

(Note, also, how Pericles and those other two model citizens of the New World Order, Christopher and PynchMe, appear embarrassed on that forum by my mention of the Reichstag fire.)

---

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

Apparently Pericles would have us believe that he was too lazy to have bothered to have looked at the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney questioning Rumsfeld in 2006, that is FIVE YEARS AFTER Rumsfeld complained of deficient IT systems that allowed $2.3 trillion to go missing, asking for the names of the contractors that supplied the IT systems.

It would appear, then, that having 'deficient' IT systems would have suited Rumsfeld's purposes perfectly.

More facts about the Pentagon's lack of financial accountability are to be found in the 2'31" YouTube broadcast "Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

This includes the story of Pentagon whilstleblower Jim Minnery, who was tried to track down a missing $300 million and was asked by his supervisor, "Why do you care about this stuff?"

The missing $300 million was eventual written off.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

In that video, there is also the story of Franklin C Spinney, an earlier whilstleblower who served under Rumsfeld the first time he was Defence Secretary. He stated:

"Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year after year."

So, it would seem that Rumsfeld, himself, was largely the cause of the problem that Pericles would have us believe was only revealed as a consequence of Rumsfeld's supposed honesty, so conveniently on 10 September 2001, the day before 9/11.

If Pericles was honest, he would acknowledge that the only thing 'mythical' about the hundreds of billions of missing Pentagon dollars was that, in my recollection, I had understated the likely amount of money.

And if Pericles had any more imagination in him than that of the dead stump of a Camphor Laurel tree in my father's front yard, he would be able to conceive of how sufficient amounts of that money to fund the demolition of the three WTC Towers could have been found from amongst the missing trillions and if he was honest, he would acknowledge that the 'means' clearly existed.

---

As much as Pericles attempts to diminish the worth of online discussions such as this, it is my intention to continue to challenge Pericles' lies here for as long as he persists posting those lies to this forum.

I obviously don't have as much time on my hands as does Pericles and many paid full-time disinformation peddlers around the globe, but it is my intention to reply to each and every one of Pericles' lies, even if, from now on, my responses may be less timely than they have been up to now.

Why, bless you, daggett, I wouldn't have it any other way.

>>As much as Pericles attempts to diminish the worth of online discussions such as this, it is my intention to continue to challenge Pericles' lies here for as long as he persists posting those lies to this forum.<<

Although we do appear to be reaching the stage where you do little else but repeat yourself. I had to dredge up that Rumsfeld speech from a long-ago-forgotten post, which is more than slightly tedious.

So, since you seem to have nothing new to offer, I guess we'll just bat the same ball back and forth over the net for a while.

>>I obviously don't have as much time on my hands as does Pericles and many paid full-time disinformation peddlers around the globe, but it is my intention to reply to each and every one of Pericles' lies, even if, from now on, my responses may be less timely than they have been up to now.<<

What rot. You obviously have heaps of spare time, writing posts here, keeping your blog updated, visiting all your friends in the conspiracy business every day just to find the latest fantasy to cut 'n paste etc. I'm amazed you fit it all inside a 24-hour day.

>>You can split hairs as much as you like, Pericles, but the fact remains...<<

It is hardly splitting hairs, I would suggest, to use the exact words of previous posts to point out

The fact remains, daggett, that all I am doing here is pointing out to you, as gently as I can, that you are simply repeating gossip. There is no conspiracy. There are no "paid full-time disinformation peddlers", except in your imagination.

It's all a dream. One day, you'll wake up and realize how much of your life has been wasted on it.

I expect your next post to begin... "Note how Pericles still refuses to admit his lies..."

Don't disappoint me, now, will you.

Pericles wrote, "Although we do appear to be reaching the stage where you do little else but repeat yourself."

Where did I ever before cite the cases of whilstleblowers Jim Minnery and Franklin C Spinney or congresswoman Cynthia McKinney?

The only person around here who is unable to come up with anything new to say is you, Pericles.

Pericles wrote, "You obviously have heaps of spare time, ..."

No, I don't. I make the time because I believe it is important that people be able to see the lies that people like you peddle about 9/11 for what they are.

It was 8 days since I was able to find the time to respond to your previous post.

Pericles wrote, "I expect your next post to begin... 'Note how Pericles still refuses to admit his lies...'"

Why should I need to, when that's abundantly obvious to all?

Actually, what I had in mind was to point out that your post has dodged all the substantive issues in my post and focussed on peripheral issues.

Do you still insist that the missing hundreds of billions were 'mythical', Pericles?

Do you think that, if Rumsfeld truly held the Pentagon IT systems to blame for the missing $2.3 trillion, that he should have done something to fix the problem before five more years had elapsed?

Does your imagination allow you to conceive of how, if a quarter of the Pentagon's budget is unaccounted for each year, the the funds necessary to pay for the explosive demolition of the 3 WTC towers could have been obtained?

I really do appreciate your persistence, daggett.

I expect there will be a full chapter in my book on "the inability to let go" syndrome, that is most definitely a hallmark of the conspiracy addict.

Another chapter - I haven't quite decided on the heading yet - will be the sheer perversity of the method of argumentation.

It goes like this:

- catastrophic event identified as the machinations of an secret cabal of banksters bent on world domination
- minutiae of catastrophic event examined, looking for evidence of said secret cabal
- confusion surrounding said catastrophic event used as "evidence" of secret cabal in action
- those unconvinced of said "evidence" point out that it is a crock, and doesn't make sense in any world other than that of conspiracy dupes
- these naysayers are labelled as paid members of secret cabal, as the only reason they could possibly not see the conspiracy

This enables you to write such pointless nonsense as:

>>The only person around here who is unable to come up with anything new to say is you, Pericles.<<

There is a limit to the number of times that the same conclusion can be phrased differently, daggett.

Means, motive, opportunity

Your description of the means by which it was carried out is evanescent

You have provided no discernible motive, unless you believe a priori in the secret cabal of banksters bent on a New World Order

Your description of opportunity reads like a Die Hard movie, only less convincing.

Meanwhile...

>>Do you still insist that the missing hundreds of billions were 'mythical', Pericles?<<

Yes

The two questions that follow are dependent on the first, and are therefore irrelevant.

When you look at it very closely - and this will probably be the topic of the first chapter of my book - to make any sense of your theories, it is absolutely essential to believe in existence of that wretched secret cabal.

Otherwise, the whole interlocking sets of theories collapse like a pack of cards.

Or - more topically - WTC7.

Professor Pericles wrote, "I expect there will be a full chapter in my book on 'the inability to let go' syndrome, ..."

So, who is to be the subject of your 'study', Pericles?

You or me?

Any, Professor Pericles, if you insist that there were no missing hundreds of billions with which the demolition of the WTC towers could have been funded, does that mean that you reject the testimony of whistleblowers, John Minnery and Franklin C. Spinney?

If the IT systems that, according to Rumsfeld himself on 10 September 2001, allowed $2.3 trillion to go missing, still weren't fixed by 2006, then what makes you so confident that there were no missing hundreds of billions?