Seems pretty fair to me, daggett.

>>Pericles, you accused me of treating material on some sites as Gospel. In fact, that is precisely what you are doing with the Popular Mechanics site and the NIST sites.<<

We put two information sources side by side.

One may be considered straightforward and factual.

The other may be seen as a farrago of misinformation and speculation.

We then make a decision, which one to go with.

You and I have decided differently at this point.

Please accept the fact that I believe that your support of these fantasies is little short of bizarre, as - clearly - you conceive mine to be.

Your posts remind me so much of one of my favourite fictional characters.

"Alice laughed: 'There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.'
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'"

As far as believing "impossible things" is concerned, I am pretty comfortable that your tolerance is set at a level 'way below my own.

You seem able to press the most extraordinarily mundane statistics - "83 elevator mechanics who had easy access to the structural columns for 9 months" - into the service of your conspiracy. It doesn't seem to worry you that elevator mechanics are rarely trained in the handling of complex munitions. They were there and - horror - a Bush once had something to do with the company they worked for.

That's a QED for you. But to me, a remote fantasy.

Incidentally, crapping on over three posts about the things I have purportedly "failed to do", doesn't actually make your case any stronger.

It still falls at the first hurdle.

Credibility.

Pericles wrote, "Please accept the fact that I believe that your support of these fantasies is little short of bizarre, ..."

The only bizarre fanatasies being pushed on this forum are those pushed by you, Yabby and PynchMe.

In fact, I refuse to believe that you actually believe what you write here.

So, when do you intend to put the arguments, that you would have us believe to be gospel from the NIST FAQ page and the Popular Mechanics page so that the rest of us can evaluate their merit?

What are you waiting for, Pericles?

You're not afraid that no sooner than you do, they will be torn tiny shreds, are you, Pericles?

---

Pericles wrote, "You seem able to press the most extraordinarily mundane statistics - '83 elevator mechanics who had easy access to the structural columns for 9 months' - into the service of your conspiracy. It doesn't seem to worry you that elevator mechanics are rarely trained in the handling of complex munitions. ..."

So how do you just happen to know that this group did not have the necessary additional training?

Pericles continued, "... They were there and - horror - a Bush once had something to do with the company they worked for.

"That's a QED for you. ..."

No, Pericles. You made the claim, "The most glaringly obvious problems are the sheer impossibility of the logistics, ..."

On this basis would therefore preclude the controlled demolition hypothesis and have us accept, instead, your supposedly more 'credible' claims, amongst others that mere air, supposedly compressed by falling floors above, somehow caused plumes of debris to have been ejected violently through the solid concrete vertical face on the corner of the North Tower as well as sever the two 6 inch supporting corner steel box columns.

However, you have not shown that it was not possible for this group of 83 men and, possibly others, given access to the Twin Towers by the Bush-family-linked Securacom, to have planted the explosives in the nine months prior to 9/11.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Pericles wrote, "Incidentally, crapping on over three posts about the things I have purportedly 'failed to do', doesn't actually make your case any stronger."

And why not, Pericles?

Do you believe that it is acceptable to make claims about my own contributions to this forum, but not be prepared to back up?

Why, for example, won't you cite a single post of mine to substantiate your claim that I have only googled and "cut'n'paste[d]" all my contributions and not put any of my own thought into them?

Why shouldn't I draw the attention of others to your dishonesty?

Why shouldn't I point out to others that you have repeatedly failed to answer straightforward questions that I have put to you?

Daggett: <"Pericles (pretending to be a complete moron) continued, "Plus perhaps some kind of sketch on how it has been kept quiet."

Pericles, what do you think the people who had organised and participated in the murder of almost 3,000 US residents would not be prepared to do in order to silence someone who wanted to reveal what had happened?">

Daggett - see that second paragraph of yours? THAT is exactly the point made on the funny site. The fella who is driving the speculation is still alive and spilling beans all over the place. You really think that it would be beyond the capacity of the alleged 9/11 conspirators to strategically place a loose step; have an elevator crash; have the bloke fall off a cliff edge on a bush walk or die of food poisoning or something ?

Anyway I'm sick of this particular conspiracy. It's been flogged and nothing more of interest. You won't even answer my question and I'm sick of posing it so - nevermind.

How about Marilyn Monroe? I love that one. Whatdya know on that?

Btw - are you one of the literati (Is that the right word or am I confusing it with scrabble?) adherents?

Oh

Sorry - just hit me - Illuminati (that correct?)

Now tell me about Marilyn hey.

PynchMe,

If you need me to point out to you the flaw in that moron's 'argument' (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) then I see little hope for you.

Anyway, have you forgotten that my post was in response to Pericles' 'argument' that there couldn't have been a conspiracy, because, if there had been, someone would have spoken up by now?

Why can't you understand that the people who conspired to murder 2,973 US residents on September 11, 2001 might feel just a little more threatened by one amongst their number who was prepared to publicly testify about their crime.

Why can't you understand that anyone, who may have had a change of heart over his/her own participation in that crime would know that the rest would stop at nothing to silence them?

So, would it really be any great surprise to you that no-one with inside knowledge of how 2,973 people were murdered have not stepped forward to reveal that knowledge?

As for asking why is Dylan Avery still alive if he is right about 9/11, it seems to me like arguing in Argentina in the 1970s': "The junta couldn't possibly be guilty of having murdered so many of its political opponents. If they did, then why are all those human rights protestors still alive?

The argument presumes that either we live under a completely repressive dictatorial regime in which all who speak out against that dictatorship are automatically murdered or imprisoned or that we live in a totally free and open democratic society.

Surely it must be obvious that there other possibilities that lie between those extremes. One would surely be one in which the Government conspires to murder some of its citizens, but it is still possible for others to speak out against those crimes without automatically facing being killed as a result.

I put it to you that that is what the US is today. Even if one can speak out as Dylan Avery has, I would suggest that it would still require considerable courage to do so.

PynchMe wrote, "Anyway I'm sick of this particular conspiracy. ..."

That's fine. As I am not expecting you to make any contributions any more worthwhile than you have in the past, I don't particularly mind if you don't hang around.

PynchMe wrote, "... It's been flogged and nothing more of interest. ..."

It's been "flogged" over and over again by our political leaders and our newspapers as justification for the war in Afghanistan and the remove of our guarantees of free speech, human rights and democratic freedoms.

Pynchme continued, "... You won't even answer my question and I'm sick of posing it so - never mind."

I have answered a good many. I mean to get around to answering a few more, but, frankly, quite a few of your questions are stupid and I think reasonable people will understand me not having been bothered.