Pericles wrote, "It is not up to me to produce any evidence whatsoever, given that I am totally at ease with the official determination. ..."

Yes, I think we have all worked out a long time ago that you are "totally at ease" with an explanation which flies in the face of overwhelming eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and the laws of physics.

But a good many others are not and that includes hundreds of thousands of people killed because people in their midst, who could not have committed that crime, were blamed for that crime.

"... It has a huge advantage over alternate theories, in that it is wholly credible."

Translation: It's true, because its true, because it's true, because the established authorities tell us that it is true, so it must be true.

Pericles wrote, "Unlike you, who has some kind of vested political interest in the promotion of conspiracy theories, ..."

Yes you have.

If you reject the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement then you must necessarily embrace the bizarre Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory peddled by the US and Australian Governments which holds that there is an all-powerful world-wild conspiracy centred in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and now it seems, Yemen, too) in which terrorist cells all over the world including are itching to inflict more mayhem on the infidel west on a scale at least comparable to 9/11.

Somehow, in spite of 9/11 having been orchestrated in Afghanistan and the hijackers having been trained there, not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured after 8 years of military occupation.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The same paranoid beliefs that you are now peddling were used by John Howard in 2007 as a pretext to place the Sydney CBD under martial law at a cost to Australian taxpayers of $250 million so that the APEC leaders could be protected from this illusory terrorist threat, and then they completely failed to protect those leaders from a Chaser member dressed to look like Osama bin Laden. (Why do you think that security failed so abysmally, Pericles? I'll tell you why: It's because whilst they knew perfectly well that there never was a terrorist threat. As for the 'threat' of being made to look like complete idiots by a team of Australian comedians, they were completely unprepared.)

---

Pericles wrote, "Interpreting puffs of smoke on a video as conclusive evidence that explosives were somehow covertly introduced to the building ... is ... the wildest of fantasies."

I consider it conclusive proof, but I am not asking you to accept it as such.

I am simply asking you to offer your own explanation of the cause of those phenomena captured on that video.

Or would you have us believe that it is perfectly normal for clouds of debris (or, as you put it, "puffs of smoke") to be violently ejected from solid concrete walls without any cause?

Do you insist that the fact that the corner columns were severed at the point where the plumes of debris were ejected had nothing to do with the latter?

Do you also insist that the start of the free-fall of those columns had nothing to do with the observed violent plumes of debris further down, with which they coincided exactly?

daggett, you are beginning to repeat yourself.

>>...you are "totally at ease" with an explanation which flies in the face of overwhelming eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and the laws of physics.<<

There is no "overwhelming eyewitness testimony" to the introduction, precise placing and simultaneous detonation of (how much was it again?) explosives, upon which your madcap theories rely.

>>Translation: It's true, because its true, because it's true, because the established authorities tell us that it is true, so it must be true.<<

I said credible, daggett. Capable of being believed.

The story produced by the authorities is at least credible. Which is more than can be said for the farrago of fantasies that you subscribe to

>>If you reject the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement then you must necessarily embrace the bizarre Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory etc. etc. ad naus.<<

It is not logical that if I don't believe X, I must therefore believe Y.

I reject the "9/11 Truth Movement" theories simply because they have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. As with every conspiracy theory, it relies on a mish-mash of circumstantial evidence, twisted to form a narrative that suits your weird worldview.

>>I am simply asking you to offer your own explanation of the cause of those phenomena captured on that video<<

It's a building collapsing.

>>would you have us believe that it is perfectly normal for clouds of debris... to be violently ejected from solid concrete walls without any cause?<<

The cause was the building collapsing.

>>Do you insist that the fact that the corner columns were severed at the point where the plumes of debris were ejected had nothing to do with the latter?<<

It certainly doesn't surprise me that debris is ejected as a building collapses.

>>Do you also insist that the start of the free-fall of those columns had nothing to do with the observed violent plumes of debris further down<<

I don't "insist" on anything. But since you ask, the existence of debris ejecting from lower floors does not strike me as particularly surprising, given that... the buiding was collapsing.

The difference in our perceptions, daggett, is that you find amusement, or enjoyment, or pleasure or whatever in the spinning of yarns about anything remotely anti-establishment.

It is your hobby, or fixation, and there appears to be nothing that you or anybody else can do about it.

Appeals to rationality, reason or logic seem to perpetually fall on deaf ears.

Reading bits from your blog, it is clear that you aspire to be "somebody".

But you haven't yet worked out that in order to be "somebody", you have to develop schtick that actually comes from somewhere, and has the possibility to go somewhere.

Yours is the equivalent of kicking a tin can in the street. You may get a few people, equally bored, to kick it around with you for a while. But it is essentially a meaningless and pointless waste of time.

But I digress.

Here on OLO, you shamelessly use any forum available, to peddle your 9/11 fantasies. It is a point of honour that somebody calls you on it every so often, which is one of the reasons you are getting this gratuitous character analysis.

It's not that your arguments need to be rebutted. Many others, in many other web sites, have done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists.

Nor is it because you are in any way important.

It's just that you are annoying.

Not very annoying.

But ingrowing-toenail-that-never-completely-goes-away annoying.

You would have us believe, according to your blog, that your failure to kick-start a political career wasn't simply a reflection of your own abilities.

The elections were rigged.

"The recently concluded Queensland elections were massively rigged against independent candidates like myself and the Greens. So too were the Brisbane City Council elections of a year ago in which I stood for Lord Mayor."

http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

One day, you may come to understand that the answer to all your conspiracy fantasies is staring you in the face.

Every morning.

In the mirror.

Too funny, Pericles :)

Mind you, James will not be amused.

I see that, true to form, Christopher, having run away from another discussion with his tail between his legs (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9851&page=7) has slunk back to this one and seized his chance to snipe at me from beneath the skirts of another contributor.

---

Pericles, I never claimed that anyone had testified as to where, how and much explosives were placed in the twin towers and WTC 7.

I would still suggest, however, that this is not reason to finish the investigation if there is still abundant other evidence that the crime has not been solved. On example is this testimony from the YouTube Video "9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

1st firefighter: "We made it outside. We made it about a block ... "

2nd firefighter: "We made it at least two blocks, and we started running."

1st firefighter: (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds) "Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh ..."

2nd firefighter: (making roughly similar gesture with clenched fist) "Floor by floor they started popping out."

1st firefighter: "It was as if they had detonators ... "

2nd firefighter: "Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down."

1st firefighter: "...planned to take down the whole building." (gestures with hands again to mimic succession of descending explosions in synch with sounds) "Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom"

2nd firefighter: "All the way down. I was watching it and running."

---

Pericles wrote: "It is not logical that if I don't believe X, I must therefore believe Y."

Well, I don't think it's logical to claim that no-one committed the crimes of 9/11, the Bali Bombings, the Madrid Bombings, the London Tube Bombings, etc. If they were not caused by a conspiracy amongst senior figures in the US and/or other Western Governments and not committed by that world wide conspiracy of Islamist extremists centred in Afghanistan as claimed by the US, Australian and British Governments, then who did it?

---

I see that Pericles now would have us all believe that all that is needed to explain all the video evidence, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence of ... (tobecontinued)