This is an interesting post, but despite what Ms Tranter claims, it must be said that it's hardly a majority view amongst international lawyers that 9/11 did NOT enliven the UN Charter's automatic right to self-defence under Art 51.

9/11 certainly did constitute an armed attack - there is no real debate about that in the scholarly literature. However, the more interesting question is the link between al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, because as Ms Tranter rightly points out in the article, no simple nationality principle can work when most of the hijackers were from Suadi Arabia.

But the article falls down here because it ignores the existence of international law scholarly literature which bridges this gap - examining the expansion of the mentioned, but not named, Caroline principle and looking at a nascent threshold for state support of terrorism, tied to the cited UN Security Council resolutions.

I suggest Ms Tranter move beyond the basic framework best articulated by Bruno Simma, and look at the latest literature from EJIL and ASIL on the subject to find her answers why most international lawyers do not think the war in Afghanistan is illegal, contra the Iraq war (which was).

Thank you for an great article, Kellie Tranter. (Of course, as a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I believe that the case against the Afghan War could be made even stronger, but, nevertheless, I believe your article remains very useful as it is.)

No evidence which implicates either the Taliban Government, nor even al Qaeda in the terrorist attack of 9/11 has been produced, in spite of it having been promised by then US Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Taliban publicly offered to hand over Osama bin Laden if the US could provide evidence of his involvement in 9/11. In private, according to some sources, they even offered to provide the US with the necessary intelligence to allow them to assassinate Osama bin Laden with cruise missiles, but the US ignored both the public and private offers and decided to invade Afghanistan anyway.

Now, after 8 and a half years of military occupation of what we were told was the hotbed of international terrorism, not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured in Afghanistan.

In a powerful and revealing speech, Dr. Graeme MacQueen, told of how at a seminar for peace in early 2001, held amongst Afghan exiles in Pakistan in early 2001, none favoured a US invasion of Afghanistan as a solution. He also revealed that some participants with sources inside the Pakistan Government revealed that an invasion of Afghanistan the US was expected. To view the speech, please visit http://www.911blogger.com/node/22234

Even today, the FBI does not believe that it has sufficient evidence to charge Osama bin Ladan withthe crime of 9/11. Try finding any reference to 9/11 on the FBI wanted poster at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

All this should surely make even those amongst us who are the most trusting of the word of the US Government to be somewhat skeptical of its story by now, I would have thought.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

BBoy, there's no doubt that 9/11 was a crime of mass murder, but I think whether it was an "armed attack" as you assert is questionable, especially when we are expected to believe that the terrorists who hijacked the planes were only armed with box-cutter knives.

If you are meaning, instead, to imply that there are no credible scholarly works which dispute the official account of 9/11, then I would suggest that the reverse is the case. There are plenty of scholarly works to be found on http://www.journalof911studies.com , http://ae911truth.org (Architects & Engineers for 911Truth), http://911truth.org http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project (The complete 9-11 timeline), etc., etc. which challenge the official account.

In contrast, I know of no credible scholarly work, which supports the official account of 9/11. If you know of any, please let us know where it is to be found.

daqggett go to http://www.chedet.co.cc/ Dr Mahathir the ex- priminister of Malaysia accuses the US Govt of being responsible for 911 and is asking for a new enquiry.

The real reason for the US being is Afghanistan and Pakistan is the oil pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Capsian Sea needed to make it economically viable.Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's heroine and the Taliban stopped it.Remember the heroine drought?
The other reason is arms sales and we and the US tax payer get taxed to buy the weapons of death.Re4member JFK remonstrating about the Military Industrial Complex and they having too much power over Govts?

Hamid Kazai used to work for UNOCAL the very same oil company who has these oil contracts.

Afghanistan was about the gas pipeline, Iraq was about the oil.
Both wars totally illegal and purely for other people's resources.

Wars for resources suit only the military industry. There is no profit for the honest economy (As the US economic woes now should make clear).
I was almost sick during Anzac day a couple of years ago when Howard said "lest we forget".
...Ah, the sick irony of it all.

Arjay, Ozandy,

Thanks for your interesting posts.

One concern I have with Afghanistan is the seeming unpalatability of the alternative to the current Afghan Government, namely the Taliban, notwithstanding their stance against heroin manufacture and their being an obstacle to the plans of US corporations to exploit the region.

There was a time I would have welcomed a US invasion of Afghanistan, so appalling were its abuses of human rights, particularly those of women, and cultural vandalism (such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan) and that was before I swallowed the lie of 9/11.

Of course, the Taliban originally came to power largely thanks to the meddling of the US and Pakistan. (Why they weren't able to come to some arrangement with the US that would have been acceptable to both parties (if not the people of Afghanistan) is not clear to me.)

Graeme MacQueen, in his talk referred to above, was clear that in early 2001 even Afghan exiles believed that that an invasion would make matters worse and they have been proven right.

---

One thing is absolutely clear: 9/11 is not a valid legal justification for the invasion. The evidence for the complicity of either al Qaeda or Taliban regime in 9/11 has never been produced. In contrast, there is a mountain of evidence implicating senior figures of the Bush administration, itself, in 9/11.

9/11 should have been treated as a crime and not assumed to have been an act of war from the beginning and investigated accordingly.

If the investigation had proven Taliban complicity in 9/11, then sanctions against Afghanistan would have been appropriate (just as sanctions against the US would have also been appropriate for its sponsorship of terrorism against Nicaragua and Cuba as just two examples).

However, a proper investigation would almost certainly have unmasked an entirely different group of perpetrators, and George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld would be behind bars today.

It's instructive that BBoy has not responded to my challenge to provide an example of a credible scholarly work in support of the Official account of 9/11.

You mention a "concern", daggett.

>>One concern I have with Afghanistan is the seeming unpalatability of the alternative to the current Afghan Government, namely the Taliban<<

A genuine concern, I would suggest, particularly for anyone even vaguely interested in the rights of human beings to be treated with respect.

Do you have a view on how to square this particular circle?

Because frankly, I can't see an easy or immediate solution that would be any significant improvement over the - utterly ridiculous - situation that exists right now.

It's like many other religion-based struggles around the world, both past and present. It is difficult even to imagine an outcome where fairness and humanity prevails.

In my view, the entire US interference in Afghanistan was horrendously misjudged from the outset. However, since it is impossible to turn back the clock, we are forced to wrestle with the problem as it exists, and not as it might have been.

Raking over the coals in order to find and name a culprit is all very well for journalists and womens-rights lawyers. I'm sure it makes them feel very warm-and-fuzzy with virtue.

But it takes a little more than righteous indignation to solve the problem. Or even take baby-steps towards solving the problem.

Does anyone have any constructive suggestions?

Nope?

Didn't think so.

So, carry on waffling about who did what, and to whom.

I'm sure Afghani women are profoundly grateful, on a daily basis.

Pericles seems remarkably ready to accept the explanation of ineptitude, or "misjudge[ment]" as he puts it, for all that has gone wrong with US foreign and domestic policy - the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq, US intelligence agencies allowing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Flight 253 on Christmas Day last year and Afghanistan.

In Chapters 16 to 18 of "The Shock Doctrine" (2007) Naomi Klein shows how,if the US had wanted it, could have set up a stable democracy in Iraq following the invasion in 2003.

However, a stable democracy would have been an obstacle to the crony capitalists' plans to loot both the wealth of Iraq and the US Treasury, so elections were cancelled, bodies elected in elections held spontaneously after the invasion were dismissed and a dictatorship.

To the extent that the violence that ensued was not false flag terrorism directly carried out by the US and British or their patsies (see "Bin Laden's unpaid media push" discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10018#161772), it would have been a result of this decision by the US occupiers.

I think it would be safe to also assume that if the US had wanted a stable democracy in Afghanistan they would have got one.

The outcome of supposed "misjudge[ments]" seem far more likely to me to have been what was intended by the US.

---

Anyway, unlike you Pericles, I am not interested in moulding reality to suit what would be most comfortable for me to believe.

I would like to be able to believe that those fighting the occupation of Afghanistan are fighting to bring into being a relatively just and humane society. However the evidence for and against that hypothesis seems contradictory and, no doubt, much of the story has been confused by newsmedia disinformation.

What can be certain is that the US has no intention of bringing into being a just and humane society in Afghanistan and that, in the longer term, Afghans stand a much better chance of bringing that about without the presence of the US and its allies.

(tobecontinued)

Occasionally, daggett, your contributions here are positively hilarious, bordering on comic genius.

You expend so much effort bending other people's posts to conform to your single-issue-fanaticism, the contortions alone are side-splittingly entertaining.

>>Pericles seems remarkably ready to accept the explanation of ineptitude, or "misjudge[ment]" as he puts it, for all that has gone wrong with US foreign and domestic policy - the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq, US intelligence agencies allowing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Flight 253 on Christmas Day last year and Afghanistan<<

The masterstroke here is of course is the way you allocate policy equivalency between a lone, would-be suicide bomber with exploding underpants, and 9/11, Iraq, and the US invasion of Afghanistan.

The really gut-bustingly amusing part, though, is that you are totally, deadly serious.

To you, there exists a seamless connectivity between a nutty Nigerian with combustible jocks, and two massive multinational troop mobilizations, plus a detailed, highly orchestrated plan to simultaneously hijack four commercial aircraft.

And that connectivity would appear to be that clandestine quasi-government agencies were responsible for both.

Such versatility. Such vision.

Don't stop, please. You're a hoot, every time.

Where can I vote for you? Queensland doesn't really need more comedians in Government. But you're something very special.

I await your next rib-tickling contribution with bated breath.

It is a pity that Pericles has not the facts to match his pseudo intellectual banter.Most of it is ad homenin with the barest of substance to back it up.

Daggett has more moral fibre than you will ever allude to in your wildest dreams.You think that Daggett is an easy target,like the wounded lion who seeks easy prey.Is it the mark of cowardice,or pragmatic survival Pericles?

Thanks for the moral support, Arjay.

In fact, dealing with Pericles' ad hominem posts is becoming an increasingly tedious chore for me, so I though I would leave it for a few days.

Still, I believe replacing lies, wherever they are found to be found, with truth is vitally necessary, so I was intending to post again in the near future.

I have no doubt that given time, Pericles will be running away with his tail between his legs as he has on every single past occasion in which we have crossed paths.

And thanks for the highly predictable comedy routine, guys.

First go to Tweedledum:

>>It is a pity that Pericles has not the facts to match his pseudo intellectual banter<<

The day either of you produce any facts to support your fantasies on "global bankster domination" and "9/11 was Bush's grand plan", will be the day the Lithgow Shamrocks win the AFL Grand Final.

>>You think that Daggett is an easy target,like the wounded lion who seeks easy prey.Is it the mark of cowardice,or pragmatic survival Pericles?<<

Neither, Arjay. I think of daggett as a self-promoting fruit-loop with a soap-box, and treat him with as little contempt as I can summon up in the face of such nonsense. Daggett a wounded lion? Give me a break.

And here's Tweedledee.

>>Thanks for the moral support, Arjay.<<

With friends like that, daggett...

>>I have no doubt that given time, Pericles will be running away with his tail between his legs as he has on every single past occasion in which we have crossed paths.<<

Your fantasies intrude far too much into your daily life, I'm afraid. Your tactics, which consist of endlessly cutting and pasting from other people's conspiracy sites, are designed to kill any discussion with tedious repetition.

As someone so succinctly reminded me recently:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" Samuel Clemens

(continuedfrom16Feb10)

Pericles wrote, "I'm sure Afghani women are profoundly grateful, on a daily basis."

Clearly Pericles has not bothered to inform himself of what is actually going on in Afghanistan, not even taking the trouble to have read the article he is ostensibly commenting on (or, indeed, it would seem the post he is comment is supposed to be in response to). This is what Kellie Tranter wrote:

"Has Mr Rudd spoken to any representatives from the Revolutionary Association of the Women Afghanistan (http://www.rawa.org/index.php), the oldest political and social organisation of Afghan women that has been struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan since 1977? Is he aware of their outrage about President Karzai backing a law governing Shia family relations that effectively legalised marital rape (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6098614.ece) and allowed for women to effectively be imprisoned in their homes? Or of that organisation's claims that the UN is concerned that the number of violent incidents against women had risen to their highest level since the fall of the Taliban? Or of their calls (http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/06/interview-with-the-revolutionary-association-of-the-women-of-afghanistan.html) for coalition forces to withdraw their troops?"

Clearly one group of women are not as "profoundly grateful, on a daily basis" as Pericles would have us think they are.

---

Like the model citizen of the New World Order that he is, Pericles unquestioningly accepts all that he is told by established authority:

"The masterstroke here is of course is the way you allocate policy equivalency between a lone, would-be suicide bomber with exploding underpants, and 9/11, Iraq, and the US invasion of Afghanistan."

A lone, would-be suicide bomber, Pericles?

Have you bothered to read what Kurt Haskell, (http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html), one of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's intended victims, had to say about this:

"Today is the second worst day of my life after 12-25-09. Today is the day that I realized that my own country is lying to me and all of my fellow Americans. Let me explain. ..."

Space does not permit me to properly continue, but how about properly informing yourself on these issues, rather than further cluttering these forums with ill-informed rants?

I can guarantee one thing, daggett.

>>Like the model citizen of the New World Order that he is, Pericles unquestioningly accepts all that he is told by established authority<<

I can absolutely 100% guarantee that I question "established authority" infinitely more than you question your dopey conspiracy theories. You are an absolute sucker for any story that's doing the rounds, aren't you. The wackier the better, you'll swallow it.

I consider that I have been exceptionally patient in the face of your ludicrous attempts to cross-question me about stories that only a dedicated conspiracy-nut would even give house-room. You are tedious, tendentious, completely boring, and on an entirely differently-abled logical planet.

And shrill.

Did I mention shrill?

That's probably the most annoying aspect. Your posts are the modern-day equivalent of having to listen to a Maggie Thatcher speech, circa 1980, while dragging one's fingernails down a wall and poking a pencil into one's eye.

Repeatedly.

Have a great day.

"Never argue with a fool,onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." With this perception Pericles, you should be good at soliloquy and a mirror as a prop.

You fail constantly to address facts and realities.Hamid Kazai the puppet leader of Afghanistan used to work for UNOCAL the very same company involved in getting the oil pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Capasian Sea.It needs to go through both Afghanistan and Pakistan.Now which country has now invaded these countries?

How about a bet Pericles? If you can disprove the physics of Building 7 of the WTC coming down at freefall gravity with no resistance of the lower structures was due to fire,and the paper on nano-thermite by Prof Niels Harrit which shows the use of extensive explosives,I will pay you $10,000.00.If you lose you then pay Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth the same amount.

Now you have the resources of the US Govt at your disposal who will gladly assist.Email NIST.National Institute for Standards and Technology.They are the body reponsible for such reports.

So put your money where your mouth is.

OK, let's explore this a little.

>>How about a bet Pericles? If you can disprove the physics of Building 7 of the WTC coming down at freefall gravity with no resistance of the lower structures was due to fire,and the paper on nano-thermite by Prof Niels Harrit which shows the use of extensive explosives,I will pay you $10,000.00.If you lose you then pay Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth the same amount.<<

What would you accept as "disproof", Arjay? Who would decide whether explosives were or were not used to bring down the building?

Be specific. There could be ten grand at stake here.

You see, my problem with the bet as it stands is that you haven't been able in the past to accept the obvious stupidity of the nano-thermite proposition, and the utter impossibility of framing a scenario in which it would occur.

All appeals to common sense have been dismissed, accompanied by snide references to anyone disagreeing with your fantasy being a "model citizen of the New World Order".

At least, I assume that is supposed to be an insult.

The very fact that you appear to give credibility to Niels Harrit leads to the obvious conclusion that whatever "disproof" is presented to you, your devotion to his wacky theory will disallow. Even the journal in which it was published disowned it, as it was not properly presented or peer reviewed.

So before taking the bet (I'll send my ten grand to Haiti, by the way) it would be useful to understand who actually decides the merits of any arguments put forward.

Generally speaking, I'm with Ron Mossad on this, by the way.

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html

Tell you what. Let's ask him to decide.

Pericles,

Concerning Arjay's bet, why not begin by explaining how fire alone randomly burning through WTC 7 could have caused all the structural strength within the first 8 floors of WTC 7 to fail uniformly within the first 2.25 seconds of 'collapse' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0). Please identify which structural components failed on each of the 8 floors and when and how the fire alone caused all of those components to fail simultaneously, floor by floor within the first 2.25 seconds.

If you truly care as much for the victims of the Haitian earthquake as you claim, and if you are as right as you insist you are, then I am sure that none of this would present you with any difficulty.

---

Pericles seems to have a remarkably thin skin. His contributions on this and other forums (e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330#81995) consists of almost nothing but personal attacks principally against me, but he is apparently offended, when I describe him as a "model citizen of the New World Order".

So, Pericles, if you are not as uncritical of what is told to you by established authority as I had said you were, when did you arrive at the firm conviction that 9/11 was the work of Islamist extremists? It wouldn't happen to have been at the time on 11 September 2001 itself (or 12 September on this side of the International Date Line) that the Bush administration pronounced Al Qaeda to be perpetrators?

If you did not uncritically accept what he said immediately, please explain the thought processes that led you to accept that Bush (who told us all of Iraqi WMD's in 2002 and stole the Presidential elections won by Al Gore in 2000) was telling the truth and to firmly hold onto that conviction since then?

For my part, I don't readily accept all conspiracy theories as you should well know. If you had ever bothered to read my posts, you would know that it was not until late 2007 that I seriously entertained the possibility that 9/11 was the work of the Bush administration itself. I challenge you to ... (tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) ... find one thing I have ever written anywhere on the 'Net before September 2008 in which questions the Official account of 9/11.

September 2008 is seven years after 9/11, so I would suggest that it is hardly typical of the person who immediately accepts any conspiracy theory that you keep so dishonestly attempting to depict me as.

So how about focusing on the issues we are discussing from now on instead of personal attacks?

Pericles,you can start with Prof David Chandler's physics analysis of the absolute freefall speeds attained in Building 7 of the WTC.How do you explain concrete and steel columns failing simulataneously,with the building coming down in it's own footprint and offering no resistance to gravity?

How do you explain a few random fires causing total dis-memberment of a 486 m building in 6.5 sec ?

Start with the physics Pericles and then we shall move to the chemistry.

Before we start embarking upon yet another string of speculations in pursuit of that $10,000 Arjay, can we go back and establish some groundrules.

What will be your standard of proof?

Plucking random gobbets from conspiracy web sites doesn't work for me. Nor do articles published without the courtesy of proper peer review.

The output from formally assembled and conducted panels of investigation, however, will do it for me.

Are you prepared to accept any such findings? If not, why not?

If you have alternative sources of information, perhaps you should present their credentials, so that we can examine their standing as competent authorities.

If you are offering eye-witness testimony that relates to explosives, for example, references to "popping sounds" that were "just like explosions" would not be regarded as being particularly informative.

daggett, what exactly are you doing here? Aren't we having this very same discussion on another thread?

>>I challenge you to ...find one thing I have ever written anywhere on the 'Net before September 2008 in which questions the Official account of 9/11.<<

To save me the bother of wading through the dross, perhaps you could point me to anything you wrote that accepts the official version.

That will enable us to see what it was that changed your mind.

Pericles asks of Arjay. "Are you prepared to accept any such findings? If not, why not?"

A good reason for Arjay to reject the findings of NIST is (as we must have pointed out to you on almost innumerable past occasions) that they fail to explain a great deal of eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and recorded evidence and cite almost none of their own to justify their own conclusions. That evidence which is cited, such as photos and eyewitness testimony fail to subsantiate their conclusions, such as that fires, capable of causing the structural failure that occurred, raged on the floors for the necessary three or more hours.

This has been shown in "The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009) by David Ray Griffin.

If you want to win the bet, Pericles, all you need do is show, to the contrary, how fire alone fed by the estimated available fuel and ventilation within WTC 7 could account for all that has been observed of the 'collapse' of WTC 7 in a way that is consistent with our knowledge of the laws of physics as Arjay and I have asked.

If that has all been explained in those NIST reports as you maintain they have, then finding that explanation and reproducing it should be dead easy.

Pericles as David Chandler says,this is baisic junior high school physics.see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0&feature=related

Pericles as David Chandler says,this is baisic junior high school physics.see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0&feature=related

As daggett said previously it was absolute freefall for 2.5 sec and this is impossible since random fires cannot cause steel and concrete to fail simultaneously like a controlled demolition situation.

Now Chandler on this video explains the flaws in NIST's farce of a report.Perhaps you could explain the flaws in Chandler's analysis?

That doesn't actually answer the question, daggett.

>>A good reason for Arjay to reject the findings of NIST is (as we must have pointed out to you on almost innumerable past occasions) that they fail to explain a great deal of eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and recorded evidence and cite almost none of their own to justify their own conclusions.<<

I asked, "What would you accept as "disproof", Arjay? Who would decide whether explosives were or were not used to bring down the building?"

All you are doing - in fact, all you ever do - is repeat the same old vague assertions, that have the single unifying characteristic that they are too insubstantial to either support or refute.

In the meantime, you consistently avoid direct questions.

On the topic of your sudden conversion to conspiracy theory, you claim there is not "one thing I have ever written anywhere on the 'Net before September 2008 in which questions the Official account of 9/11."

Against which, of course, there is the fact that you didn't write anything in favour of it either.

The point being that you used this as a defence against your predilection for conspiracy theory over simple, observable facts. Which conclusion obviously stands.

Face it, daggett, you're just using this forum for self-aggrandizement, painting yourself in the colours of "truth-seeker". When in fact all you are doing is peddling someone else's ideas to which - for reasons best known to yourself - you find attractive.

The fact that they are arrant nonsense doesn't seem to phase you one bit.

Pericles ranted, "... Against which, of course, there is the fact that you didn't write anything in favour of it either."

In fact I believe it is likely that I have on the odd occasion stated my acceptance of both the official account of the official explanation of 9/11 and the necessity of the invasion of Afghanistan.

If I didn't write a lot in support of those views, it would simply be because I did not seriously consider, prior to late 2007, that they were controversial.

Obviously, the second paragraph should have been:

"In fact, I believe it is likely that I have, on the odd occasion, stated my acceptance of both the official explanation of 9/11 and the necessity for the invasion of Afghanistan."

Pericles is not addressing the issues.He is using obfuscation to side step the physics.The average acceleration of WTC Building 7 was 8.8 m/sec.This is determined by the formula ;acceleration = 2x distance divided by time squared.T = 6.5 sec, dist = 186 m .Now an average acceleration of 8.8m/sec is extremely fast.90% of absolute freefall.

WTC 7 fastest speed can be calculated by; velocity = sq root( 2 X acceleration X distance).Which is 57.2 m/sec. WTC 7 reached a maximum speed of 205 kph.These are my calculations to give it a new perspective.

A man jumping out of a plane with parachute closed, reaches a terminal verocity of 200 kph due to the resistance of air.How did WTC 7 exceed this speed when the lower structures were offering serious resistance to freefall velocity?

Go to it Pericles.Perhaps it was divine intervention,or likely, nano-thermite.

Thanks for all those calculations, Arjay.

>>These are my calculations to give it a new perspective<<

I'm sure they do, Arjay. To some people.

But I'd question your basic assumption that it is not possible for the felling floors to achieve this velocity. If the structure itself had been weakened - by fire, shall we say - then it is entirely possible that these speeds could be reached.

Let me allow a retired Fire Department Chief, Arthur Scheuerman, take up the story.

"The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled 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."

I present this as evidence in the same manner that daggett claims that "if it is possible to happen, then it must have happened" when discussing Die Hard scenarios.

Have you taken this test, by the way?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6161425.stm

It's very informative.

Fire Pericles is an organic process,it weakens a building non-uniformily.Fire moves to where the fuel is and NIST admits that the kilolitres of diesel fuel did not combust.There were a few scattered fires in WTC 7 and some minor damage due to debris hurled 200 m from the towers.Concrete steel reinforced steel buildings have never prior 911 or since collapsed due to fire.Buildings in the past have burnt for 16-24 hrs with much hotter fires with no collapses.

I stand by my maths since they are derivatives of yr 10 physics formulas pertaining to distance and velocity.From both these formulae we can determine both the average acceleration and the velocity of WTC 7.They are V squared = U squared + 2AS whereby A is acceleration ,S is distance and V is velocity.Also S = UT +1/2 AT squared.

To make it simple,ignore UT and U since they represent initial velocity which in this instance is zero.Go back to your high school algerbra,you can make any one of these imputs the subject and discover important things like acceleration and velocities pertaining to WTC 7,just as I have demonstarted.

On occasions, Pericles has shown himself to be capable of being courteous and complementing what I write as he did in a response (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10078&page=2) to a post of mine (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10078&page=1) in the forum discussion in response to "How can community democracy be strengthened in your local area?" another article by Kellie Tranter.

So as I wrote there, why can't he contribute to this forum (and the forum "JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330#81981) in the same spirit?

Why continue to bloat forums with lengthy lectures to me about my (alleged) inadequacy, paranoia an delusional state of mind, instead of focusing on the issues at stake?

Of course no-one is asking Pericles to automatically agree with us, but it would help this debate move forward if the baggage of personal attacks could be left behind.

---

Pericles, are you sure that retired Fire Department Chief, Arthur Scheuerman isn't talking about the twin towers and not WTC 7 when you write:

"The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled 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."

?

Where's the source? Where does it fit into the explanation of the collapses?

Whatever, it could only possibly hope to make sense if the the Twin Towers had been held together with sticky tape.

Pericles continued, "I present this as evidence in the same manner that daggett claims that 'if it is possible to happen, then it must have happened' when discussing Die Hard scenarios."

Pericles seems to be admitting his argument is nonsensical but then attempts to divert attention from that admission by claiming my arguments are similarly nonsensical.

No-one said "if it is possible to happen, then it must have happened".

What I have attempted to imply is that we have to reject hypotheses that are impossible and, of the hypotheses which are possible, choose the most likely.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Pericles has not proven that it would have been impossible for a group of men, seeming to others to have an entirely different purpose, to have, with the cooperation of the buildings' management and security, gained the necessary access to plant whatever explosives were necessary to bring down WTC 7.

If, for argument's sake, that scenario had been thoroughly investigated and testimony from all available people working in and around WTC 7 had been sought and the witnesses cross-examined and all the evidence had been carefully considered and it had been conclusively established that no means for anyone to have planted the explosives had existed, and no other physical evidence supported the controlled demolition hypothesis, then that hypothesis would have to be excluded.

However, most suspiciously, that has not been attempted. The physical evidence that could have proved or disproved the hypothesis, namely the building debris, was nearly all removed, and what little that was not removed (mostly structural steel damaged and deformed obviously by heat far more intense than what could have been caused by fire alone) was not even considered by NIST in its report.

I think, given the absence of any other hypothesis that was remotely possible, and given this highly suspicious behaviour, we should be entitled to conclude that it was a controlled demolition.

However, Pericles does not have to accept that.

But why can't he at least accept the necessity for a new and proper investigation of the 'collapses' as called for by (currently) 1058 qualified architects and engineers (http://ae911truth.org) including Jan Utzon (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/163 http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html), the son of the late Joern Utzon, designer of the Sydney Opera House?

I have no problem with your maths, Arjay.

>>I stand by my maths since they are derivatives of yr 10 physics formulas pertaining to distance and velocity.<<

I haven't checked it, because in the light of the parts that we can actually agree on, it becomes irrelevant.

Which brings us to your understanding of fire. Which I also have no problems with.

>>Fire Pericles is an organic process,it weakens a building non-uniformily<<

Which is pretty much the point that our New York Fire Chief (retired) makes in his summary of WTC7's collapse.

"The first thing to fail was the east side interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse on the roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in indicating core column failure and than the exterior frame started to descend, but there were large belt trusses around the entire building between the 22nd to 24th floors. There could have been columns failing at different times below these belt trusses but these trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower columns had failed."

(I have Arthur Scheuerman's "fireman's view" in document form only, I'm afraid - it appeared as a blog post that doesn't respond to the original address I found it on - sorry)

His main point, in case you missed it, is that fire is an organic process, it weakens a building non-uniformily.

Now, where have I heard that before?

You are hilarious Pericles.How can you write this rubbish and keep straight face? Durgh."I haven't check it( meaning the maths)because in the light of the parts that wwe actually agree on,it becomes irrelevant." Upon which parts do we agree? Tis is gooblede-gook Pericles.Did you not do year 10 maths or science?

" The first to go were the interior columns....." WTC Building 7 had the classical crimp at in the middle in which the core columns are blown first to make the structure fall in on itself,this is why the service centre at the top was the first to go.

We seem to have a comprehension problem here from Pericles.Structures of any description,do not fail similtaneously in such a sequential fashion,without some sort of intervention.As Richard Gage has said,buildings that are compromised organically by fire fall over,not into their own footprint.That is the stark reality glaring you in the face Pericles which you fail to address,without even mentioning the maths and physics which seems to escape you also.

Well, y'know Arjay, it was quite a long time ago.

>>Did you not do year 10 maths or science?<<

They've probably changed the rules a lot since I was at school.

But that isn't really the point, is it?

The way I see it, when a New York Fire Chief explains it to me one way, and you explain it to me a different way, there's not a great deal of difficulty making a choice as to whom to believe.

I'm sure you understand that. Doesn't need maths or science, really.

Or perhaps I'm doing you a grave disservice, Arjay.

Perhaps, after you did Year 10 (both maths, and science; good for you!), you went on to become a Fire Chief in New York City, and learned all about what fire does to buildings in order to make them collapse?

If so, I'll simply leave you and Arthur Scheuerman to fight it out between you.

Was Richard Gage a fireman, too?

You have shot yourself in the foot yet again Pericles."Who is Richard Gage?" Now some time ago you informed me that you actually did an extensive examination of http://ae911truth.org/ and found it to be fallacious.Richard Gage is the Architect who founded this organisation and is prominent in most of the literature, esp Blueprint for Truth.

You have no credibility.

I am interested to have learnt that Pericles has claimed to have extensively examined the material on http://ae911truth.org

I, for one, would certainly be most interested to learn what on http://ae911truth.org Pericles found to be fallacious and why.

I've been watching this thread with some bemusement, and I have to inform Arjay that it's not Pericles who has no credibility here.

Christopher,

In order to be considered credible yourself, you need to have first demonstrated a comprehension of the case of those you are arguing against.

Now, where have you even once demonstrated any comprehension whatsoever of the case of the 9/11 Truth movement?

Certainly no-where in that prolonged discussion on 9/11 Truth that began in September 2008 at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82

James Sinnamon, I think that my credibility with respect to your conspiracy fantasies is demonstrated by the fact that I treat them as the crock that they are, and don't generally give you and your fellow delusionists any oxygen when you rave on about them.

Do carry on anyway - it's often a source of mild amusement.

Arjay, that was a poor effort, even for you.

>>You have shot yourself in the foot yet again Pericles."Who is Richard Gage?" Now some time ago you informed me that you actually did an extensive examination of http://ae911truth.org/ and found it to be fallacious.Richard Gage is the Architect who founded this organisation and is prominent in most of the literature, esp Blueprint for Truth.<<

I asked: "Was Richard Gage a fireman, too?", which is not even a close relative of "Who is Richard Gage".

You are certainly scraping the barrel if you need to put words into my mouth in order to refute them. Sad, really.

And daggett:

>>I, for one, would certainly be most interested to learn what on http://ae911truth.org Pericles found to be fallacious and why.<<

Pretty much all of it, really. I suspect the URL is genuine. And most of it appears to be written in English. However I will admit to a degree of boredom setting in after a while, when I realized that there was no evidence beyond the circumstantial, no particularly compelling narrative that explained a motive, no clear examination of the means, and nothing beyond the wildest conjecture for opportunity.

Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln...

Pericles,

You have not told us what was wrong with any of specific http://ae911truth.org

All you have claimed is that it lacked certain other information which you insist is necessary.

Regardless of whether or not there was "no particularly compelling narrative that explained a motive, no clear examination of the means, and nothing beyond the wildest conjecture for opportunity" are you able to provide a specific example of any material on the site which you can show to be wrong?

---

Thanks, CJ Morgon, for yet another illuminating post from you on 9/11.

Yet, somehow, I can't help but wonder:

If, in the unlikely event that I were to change my views again on 9/11 and come to the view that George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had been telling us the truth about 9/11 all along, would you be able to help me argue my case to others?

I should have typed:

"You have not told us what was wrong with any specific part of http://ae911truth.org"

---

Also, my apologies to Christopher for having misspelt his surname with that added 'g'.

You still seem to be missing the point, daggett.

>>You have not told us what was wrong with any specific part of http://ae911truth.org"... are you able to provide a specific example of any material on the site which you can show to be wrong?<<

Ok, let me see whether I can put it into some perspective for you.

Let's imagine you are reading "The Onion" for the first time.

http://www.theonion.com

You have been told that it is a vital source of information on current affairs.

After a couple of hours, you realize that you are not reading facts, but some fairly clever satire. You are justifiably annoyed that your time has been wasted in this fashion, and that the person who directed you to the site is taking advantage of your gullibility.

You pick up the phone, and give them a blast. The other party expresses surprise, and asks you to point out which particular article was not factual.

What do you do?

The articles themselves are written in way that sounds sincere. The only way you could possibly refute what they are saying is to track down the individuals concerned - if indeed they exist - and check the story - if indeed they have one.

Instead, you do what 99.99% of the rest of the population does.

You say to yourself "hey, this is satire". And start to chuckle along.

How do you know it is satire?

Because the premise behind each article - even though individually within the bounds of "possibility" - bears all the obvious hallmarks of being pure invention, helped along by a massive dose of imagination.

That's also where I stand with your conspiracy site.

Does the situation it describes sound remotely feasible?

Is there sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances?

Does the story, in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief?

I hope this helps you understand, just a little more, where you and I disconnect on this topic.

Pericles and CJ Morgan still refuse to address the phycics,maths and chemistry reality let alone all the other evidence.Just pure derision as your last hope of repose.

John Bursill the Aust representitive of aetruth.org is offering a $100,000.00 bet for CJ Morgan ,Pericles or other detractors to disprove the science,physics & maths.Easy money for you Pericles.

I will up my bet to $20,000.00 More easy money.We will even offer odds in your favour upon agreement of the detail.

No doubt, 'skeptics' and fellow Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists James Randi and Michael Shermer will be falling over themselves to win those bet as we speak, so I wouldn't leave it to long if I were you, Pericles.

James Randi famously offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could prove in scientifically verifiable and repeatable experiments that they had paranormal powers.

If I shared Pericles', James Randi's and Michael Shermer's remarkable understanding of physics that somehow eludes my own limited grasp that makes it all perfectly clear to them how WTC 7 collapsed so neatly in 5.6 seconds in exactly the manner of a controlled demolition through fire alone, then I would be taking John Bursill's $100,000 and Arjay's $20,000 off them faster than you could blink twice.

----

Pericles, perhaps you could give an example of an article on http://ae911truth.org which you believe to be satire and which "bears all the obvious hallmarks of being pure invention, helped along by a massive dose of imagination" similar to those articles you refer to on http://www.theonion.com and explain why?

Really, Arjay?

>>John Bursill the Aust representitive of aetruth.org is offering a $100,000.00 bet for CJ Morgan ,Pericles or other detractors to disprove the science,physics & maths.<<

Does he know about this?

I guess it might be just a figment of your imagination. Like the aetruth.org address that doesn't exist.

I would be very interested to hear the conditions of this bet. A search for "John Bursill" on Google doesn't provide any clues to the existence of the bet, or its Ts & Cs.

And of course, as I have asked a couple of times before, what is required to win your own imaginary "bet". So far you have neglected to supply any details as to who will determine the level of proof required.

I would not like to get into a situation where, say, I was asked to provide "proof" of evolution, only to find the answers would be judged by Dan S de Merengue. If you see what I mean.

I do love the way you deliberately misrepresent my posts, and then quiz me on your misinterpretation, daggett. You will undoubtedly make a great politician, if you were ever to get elected. You are a natural obfuscator. And I mean that as a compliment.

>>Pericles, perhaps you could give an example of an article on http://ae911truth.org which you believe to be satire<<

It is The Onion that is satirical, daggett.

http://www.theonion.com/

My questions on the web site in question were spelt out, quite clearly.

"Does the situation it describes sound remotely feasible? Is there sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances? Does the story, in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief?

I was using the satirical magazine as an analogy, do you see? Not a simile.

Is it just me getting the impression you are both rather scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

Pericles asks, again:

"Does the situation it describes sound remotely feasible? Is there sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances? Does the story, in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief?"

Of course, my answers are: Yes, Yes and Yes!

What is not "remotely feasible", lacks "sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances", and does not "in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief" is the official explanation of the WTC tower 'collapses'.

The fact remains that you have refused my repeated request to attempt to show how even one document on http://ae911truth.org is wrong as they would surely have to be if the case you are putting here is true.

Yes, daggett.

But did you understand the bit about The Onion?

It still worries me that you might think it is factual.

Incidentally, while you may answer "Yes, Yes and Yes!", capital letters and exclamation mark and all, you are in a very, very substantial minority.

I wonder why that might be?

Pericles,John Bursill emailed me recently and he offered a bet of $100,000.00 to detractor,guess what,the detractor backed out.I sure John would accommoadate the great Pericles and so will I.

Now stop this weasel business Pericles and start disproving the physics of David Chandler.ie freefall.

That's really interesting, Arjay.

>>Pericles,John Bursill emailed me recently and he offered a bet of $100,000.00 to detractor,guess what,the detractor backed out.I sure John would accommoadate the great Pericles and so will I.<<

Do you have the email handy?

Ask John to put his $100,000 challenge up on one of the 911 blogs, will you. Making it clear that it is open to all, and that he is prepared allow me to publicise the offer in the national press. Then repeat your own contribution, next to it, with the same conditions.

At which point I might take you seriously.

Then we would be able to get down to brass tacks.

Whom do you suggest should determine the validity of the evidence?

Please don't offer daggett.

Pericles wrote, "It still worries me that you might think it is factual."

Of course, I understand that the Onion is not factual. What did I ever write that gave you the impression that I did?

---

Pericles asked (earlier), "But did you understand the bit about The Onion?"

Either:

A. You are claiming that http://ae911truth.org is in some way like http://www.theonion.com or

B. You are not;

You have denied that you consider http://ae911truth.org to be satirical, but have not explained in what other way you consider it similar to http://www.theonion.com so I fail to see the relevance of http://www.theonion.com to this discussion.

I am not here to talk in riddles, Pericles.

Once again: Are you or aren't you going to explain what on http://ae911truth.org caused you to pronounce that site to be fallacious?

Always pleased to clarify, daggett.

>>You have denied that you consider http://ae911truth.org to be satirical, but have not explained in what other way you consider it similar to http://www.theonion.com so I fail to see the relevance of http://www.theonion.com to this discussion. I am not here to talk in riddles, Pericles. Once again: Are you or aren't you going to explain what on http://ae911truth.org caused you to pronounce that site to be fallacious?<<

Of course. Let me try again.

You and I start from entirely different premises, which creates a different view of reality.

You see what some blogger somewhere sees as an anomaly in the 9/11 story, and build upwards from there, to a point where you declare that it must have been an inside job, involving tonnes of explosives carefully placed and precisely detonated.

I read the story about how government agents reporting to the Bush family have deliberately killed thousands of their fellow citizens, with no convincing motive, with an implausible methodology, and full of mind-blowing coincidences, and park it in the "conspiracy-nut" basket.

That's the link with The Onion, you see. They write a totally ridiculous story, often quoting and referring to real people, that sounds plausible only if you take it at its face value.

Here's one I particularly enjoyed.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/google_responds_to_privacy

For you, the story gains momentum from the point where - as we all know - Google is able to view enormous amounts of personal information.

I start from the point that there isn't the remotest possibility that Google would apologize along these lines.

You see what I mean?

So, to repeat myself, from an earlier post:

"My questions on the web site in question were spelt out, quite clearly. 'Does the situation it describes sound remotely feasible? Is there sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances? Does the story, in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief?' I was using the satirical magazine as an analogy, do you see? Not a simile."

Hope this helps.

As I wrote, "I am not here to talk in riddles, Pericles."

If you are not going to provide even one specific example of material from http://ae911truth.org which you claim to be fallacious, then why won't you say so?

I have said so, daggett, on a number of occasions.

>>If you are not going to provide even one specific example of material from http://ae911truth.org which you claim to be fallacious, then why won't you say so?<<

For the same reasons that I don't check on the "facts" behind the stories in The Onion.

That way lies madness.

So, Pericles now openly concedes that he has not even bothered to check any of the facts on of http://ae911truth.org yet wants us to accept his word that the content of that site is fallacious.

Yes daggett,he did not even know who Richard Gage was. He has assurred me in the past that he has viewed the site and it was all conjecture.

ae911tuth now has over 7000 memebers.They could in reality offer a bet well in excess of $ one million.This would be a average of $150.00 per person.Just put it with the betting agencies and the word would get out.They would not have to rely on the media.

That's a good suggestion, Arjay.

Has anyone put that to Richard Gage?

Perhaps they could get commitments from all their members to pay US$250 each (just to be sure) in the highly unlikely event that the bet was lost.

---

Arjay wrote "[Pericles] has assured me in the past that he has viewed the site and it was all conjecture."

(See my response at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=24)

Anyway, I knew this was going to happen.

It always does, eventually.

Sooner or later, Pericles, or whoever, to finds him/herself cornered by logic and the evidence and have nowhere left to go.

He may yet come back, clutching yet another straw, but as long as others are able to argue their case and don't allow themselves to fall for debating tricks, the final outcome is assured.

I've only come to this thread late.

Looking at daggett's link, there are a lot of technical opinions there that look to have credibility, at least on the surface.

Assuming the twin towers and WTC Building 47 were actually brought down by explosives, who do people say is the culprit and what exactly would be a sufficiently good motive to do it? I cannot believe the US Government would have anything to gain from losing their capitalist flagship.

Could it be that Al Qaeda secreted explosives into the buildings and got a double bang for their buck? That is, the planes for visual effect and explosives detonated from the ground to make sure the things came down? But, then again, A Muslim extremist organisation wouldn't be too worried about making sure the building came down in its own footprint, would it. For them, the messier, the better.

If it wasn't Al Qaeda, then there would have had to be collusion between the attackers and someone in the US, or at least considerable foreknowledge of the attack.

So, what would be the motive? A modern-day appeasement to the Gods? Here is our token, ritual sacrifice?

I would, daggett, if there were any.

>>Pericles now openly concedes that he has not even bothered to check any of the facts on of http://ae911truth.org<<

The problem is finding a fact to check, as opposed to the farrago of circumstantial innuendo, wild imagination and self-fulfilling, circular arguments for a conspiracy that populate its pages.

But you obviously believe it, and your dogged defence of the impossible is necessary for you in order to maintain any kind of self-image.

(It is far too late, by the way, to be concerned about your public image, that is set in stone. Your most prominent label is now "conspiracy doob".)

And Arjay, you're just as bad.

>>Yes daggett,he did not even know who Richard Gage was.<<

You know that is pure invention on your part, I'm amazed you don't keep quiet about it. I'll repeat here what I said on another thread.

"I ask [Arjay] a simple question, "Was Richard Gage a fireman too", and he starts to crow "Pericles doesn't know who Richard Gage is, nerny ner ner"

All of which is to cover up the fact that Richard Gage is not a fireman, has never been a fireman, and is therefore unlikely to win an argument with a real New York Fire Chief on the topic of... fire.

It would actually be pathetic, if it wasn't so funny.

Conversely, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

On the topic of pathetic, what happened to that bet?

Where's the evidence that John Bursill is putting up $100,000? Surely you must have kept the email? And what about the referee? Any thoughts on who will be the person or body who can make an objective assessment?

Arjay, it is easy to pretend. It is also quite easy to believe the stuff you tell yourself. The important thing though is to recognize when you have overstepped the mark, and confess.

It might take a while to rebuild your credibility to where it was before, but you need to start somewhere.

Scratch that. It will take no time at all.

How hard would it be for Pericles to simply copy an example of what he tells us is "the farrago of circumstantial innuendo, wild imagination and self-fulfilling, circular arguments" on http://ae911truth.org and paste it here for all to see?

---

As for firefighters, Pericles, can you explain to us what is wrong with the reasoning of 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 ?

Sorry I missed your post earlier, RobP.

You have asked some good questions.

The motivation for the US Government to kill its own citizens is simply to provide a pretext to launch its foreign wars, attack the US constitution and implement its domestic agenda of theft of Treasury funds and wealth of ordinary people to line the pockets of the croney capitalists behind Bush.

The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/ openly stated that they needed a new Pearl Harbout to win acceptance of their agenda:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf 850K)

The Project for a New American Century was the cabal for whom President George W. Bush was the front man.

In 1962, The US Joint Chiefs of Staff planned to stage terrorist attacks on US soil and hijackings and blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.

However President Kennedy stopped in and removed from his post (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods).

---

It's inconceivable that al Qaeda operatives could have penetrated the security of the three towers at the WTC and have been able to have planted all the necessary explosives.

But if they somehow, by some miracle had, how they did so, would have been very easily discovered by a proper investigation.

However, most of the evidence that would have pointed to the guilt of al Qaeda, that is, if they had, indeed, planted the explosives, was destroyed. It was shipped away to China and melted, as Erik Lawyer explains in that talk, which I linked to above.

Whoever it was who planted the explosives had to have been protected from being unmasked by whoever it was that set up the investigations.
(tobecontinued)

continuedfromabove)

The 'investigations' were set up so that it would cover up the true causes of the 'collapses' (i.e. controlled demolition) and, instead, claim that the mere impact of two aircraft on the two towers and the fires caused by the residual aviation fuel was enough to cause three steel framed buildings to collapse completely at near free fall speeds for the first and last time in history.

The only people with the power to turn the NIST investigation into the cover-up that it was would have had to have been highly placed in the Bush administration.

Ok daggett, here goes.

>>How hard would it be for Pericles to simply copy an example of what he tells us is "the farrago of circumstantial innuendo, wild imagination and self-fulfilling, circular arguments" on http://ae911truth.org and paste it here for all to see?<<

http://ae911truth.org

There it is, in all its glory.

Mind you, you yourself make a fabulous case for ignoring it, with your classic responses to RobP's questions.

>>The motivation for the US Government to kill its own citizens is simply to provide a pretext to launch its foreign wars, attack the US constitution and implement its domestic agenda of theft of Treasury funds and wealth of ordinary people to line the pockets of the croney capitalists behind Bush.<<

Well of course! Why didn't I think of that?

Probably (answering own question) because it is so utterly nonsensical, that only a dedicated conspiracy-dweeb could be bothered to form the sentence.

>>The Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/ openly stated that they needed a new Pearl Harbout to win acceptance of their agenda:<<

Rubbish.

They “openly stated” as follows:

“Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.”

This is the sentence immediately following the one that you conspiracy-nuts believe shows the intent of the short-lived, politically sterile bunch of nobodies to create a “Pearl Harbor” incident.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (p51)

You'd be better off quoting the political views of the Windorah Ladies Bowling Club for all the relevance they have to 9/11.

>>It's inconceivable that al Qaeda operatives could have penetrated the security of the three towers at the WTC and have been able to have planted all the necessary explosives.<<

But daggett, what happened to your claim that it was mere a matter of fixing the elevator maintenance programme?

>>The 'investigations' were set up so that it would cover up the true causes of the 'collapses'<<

Yup. The conspiracy-wally's answer to everything:

"Of course it was a conspiracy. The fact that there is no evidence proves it - it shows they had something to hide"

As I already said, Pericles:

So, Pericles now openly concedes that he has not even bothered to check any of the facts on http://ae911truth.org yet wants us to accept his word that the content of that site is fallacious.

Is it my imagination daggett, or are you running out of ideas?

You keep asking the same ridiculous question. I keep giving you the same, carefully considered answer.

When will it occur to you that I am not about to buy into your fantasy?

What pleasure do you get from banging your head against the brick wall of reality?

It's a fascinating case study in futility, really. You must have realized by now that your chances of converting anyone here to believe in your wacko theories is minuscule.

As I have said before, you start from someone else's imagined "anomaly", and, with the help of the internet and a bunch of conspiracy fanatics, build it into a full-blown fiction involving everyone you hate - Bush, the "banksters", the neocons, the new World Order...

If you step back and look at it as a whole, you (sorry, everybiody else) can see that your theories cannot possibly survive the light of reason and rational thought.

But have a nice day anyway.

Pericles wrote, "Is it my imagination daggett, or are you running out of ideas?"

As they say about people in glass houses, ...

The only ideas, that I can recall Pericles contributing to this discussion, are:

1. His claim that it is inconceivable that the necessary demolition charges could have been planted and wired in the WTC towers without the perpetrators having been found out and exposed.

2. That the rulers of the US stood to gain nothing from 9/11.

3. That the rulers of the US would not be capable of deliberately murdering so many of their own citizens in order to advance their geo-political agendas.

4. That people who dispute the official account of 9/11 are nutters.

Have I missed anything Pericles?

From this it necessarily follows that:

1. Everything that George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney et al have claimed about 9/11 should be accepted without question, that is:

(i) people in Afghanistan plotted 9/11, trained the perpetrators and provided them with all the necessary resources, even though not one person has been captured in Afghanistan after more than 8 years of military occupation of that country with a proven link to 9/11;

(ii) that there is a global network of terrorist cells, directed from Afghanistan which have the intention and capability of perpetrating more 9/11's, 7/7's, Bali bombings, 12/25's, etc.;

(iii) in order to prevent a recurrence of 9/11 it is necessary for (a) countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. to be invaded with the consequent loss of life of hundreds of thousands of their citzens and (b) remove ordinary citizens' guarantees of democratic freedoms and human rights, (c) divert almost unlimited resources in claimed efforts to thwart further such attacks, e.g. nearly $200 million to be spent on full body scanners, $ million on APEC in September 2007 [1], (d) impose martial law at will as occurred in the Sydney CBD during APEC in September 2007.

2. Any evidence claimed to be contrary to the claims of Bush et al about 9/11, such as that on http://ae911truth.org should not even be considered.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

3. People who want to uphold the official account of 9/11 are entitled to lie (for example to falsely claim to have examined the evidence on http://ae911truth.org) and contradict themselves and never be expected to explain themselves.

Please let me know where I misrepresented your views, Pericles.

---

I wrote, "It's inconceivable that al Qaeda operatives could have penetrated the security of the three towers at the WTC and have been able to have planted all the necessary explosives."

Then Pericles wrote (pretending to be incapable of following any complex argument):

"But daggett, what happened to your claim that it was mere a matter of fixing the elevator maintenance programme?"

I was responding to RobP's suggestion that al Qaeda operatives might have somehow been able to get into the World Trade Center towers against the best efforts of the WTC centre security to thwart their efforts and plant the demolition explosives.

Surely, Pericles is capable of grasping that my hypothesis, of the WTC security deliberately turning a blind eye or even actively collaborating with domestic saboteurs, is entirely different.

---

Footnotes

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_Australia_2007#cite_ref-12

Anything to oblige, daggett.

>>Please let me know where I misrepresented your views, Pericles.<<

You know me, always here to help.

Let's start at the beginning.

>>it is inconceivable that the necessary demolition charges could have been planted and wired in the WTC towers without the perpetrators having been found out and exposed.<<

Spot on. Glad you recognized it.

>>the rulers of the US stood to gain nothing from 9/11.<<

The USA is a fairly robust democracy, daggett. The concept of "rulers" is therefore inadmissible. But you're right, the Government stood to gain nothing from 9/11. Just a great deal of pain.

>>the rulers of the US would not be capable of deliberately murdering so many of their own citizens in order to advance their geo-political agendas.<<

Change "rulers" to Government, and yes, you have it in a nutshell.

>>people who dispute the official account of 9/11 are nutters.<<

No, just those conspiracy blowflies, daggett. Sadly, they seem to make the most noise.

In fact, it would actually be extremely constructive to hear from normal people who disagree with the accepted truth. But I'll not be holding my breath.

Which is an interesting aspect to this whole thing, don't you think? The only people who "dispute the official account" also buy into the whole Bush/neocon/CIA/conspiracy freakshow.

I suspect that might not be a coincidence.

There is of course absolutely no point in commenting on the rest of your post, which is your usual farrago of "if this, then that" nonsense, all of which is a product of your own imagination. It doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to anything I might even vaguely agree with.

>>Surely, Pericles is capable of grasping that my hypothesis, of the WTC security deliberately turning a blind eye or even actively collaborating with domestic saboteurs, is entirely different.<<

I "grasp" your hypothesis, but disagree with it Explain how it is "entirely different".

(Note: Any suggestion that the non-domestic conspirators would be instantly recognizable by the towels around their heads, will be ruled out of order.)

Pericles, the point of my recent post was not, at that stage, to argue the merit or otherwise of your case. It was simply to:

1. Establish what your actual case was; and

2. Establish what was the sum total of ideas that you had contributed to this discussion (as you had accused me of "running out of ideas").

You are perfectly welcome to add to what I have written, correct what I have written or re-word what I had written.

However, after a promising start:

"Anything to oblige, ...", "You know me, always here to help. ..."

... you gave up half way through:

"There is of course absolutely no point in commenting on the rest of your post, ..."

Yes, there is.

Either confirm that I have accurately depicted your views, or tell us what your actual views are.

It's up to you, Pericles. I really don't mind that much either way.

---

Pericles asks "Explain how it is 'entirely different'."

Pericles seems to need me to explain to him that if the building security officers had deliberately turned a blind eye or even actively collaborated with the saboteurs that that would have made the saboteurs' work no less difficult than if they had, instead, done their utmost to protect the buildings they were paid to guard and the lives of those who worked within.

I feel that you might be making my case for me daggett.

>>Pericles, the point of my recent post was not, at that stage, to argue the merit or otherwise of your case. It was simply to:
1. Establish what your actual case was; and
2. Establish what was the sum total of ideas that you had contributed to this discussion (as you had accused me of "running out of ideas").<<

That pretty much confirms the lack of ideas part.

Be honest for a moment. You haven't the slightest interest in "establishing" anything. All you want is a pulpit for your loony-tune conspiracy theories, and here am I, providing just that.

You should be pathetically grateful that I even bother to respond at all.

And while we are on the subject of contributions to the discussion, show me one single idea you have expressed, that hasn't been lifted from one of the myriad conspiracy sites or blogs littered around the internet. I doubt you have the basic subject-matter competence, even to know whether they are pulling your plonker or not. Have you.

Face it, you are merely a conduit for some wacky self-promoter to get their anti-establishment rocks off.

Patsy.

>>Either confirm that I have accurately depicted your views, or tell us what your actual views are.<<

No. You provide another set of "views", and I will tell you whether you are close or not.

Buggered if I'm doing your work for you.

And while you are about it, take another look at this sentence of yours.

>>Pericles seems to need me to explain to him that if the building security officers had deliberately turned a blind eye or even actively collaborated with the saboteurs that that would have made the saboteurs' work no less difficult than if they had, instead, done their utmost to protect the buildings they were paid to guard and the lives of those who worked within<<

i) it doesn't make sense, even on its own, and ii) it is not relevant to the topic we were discussing.

Par for the course, though.

Pericles wrote, "You should be pathetically grateful that I even bother to respond at all."

Pericles, I am only here out of a sense of obligation. If you truly believe that by persisting in what you are doing, you are in any way helping me, then why won't you stop?

I wrote, "Either confirm that I have accurately depicted your views, or tell us what your actual views are."

Then Pericles wrote, "No. You provide another set of 'views', and I will tell you whether you are close or not."

"Buggered if I'm doing your work for you."

Your explaining what your own views are is doing my work?

I believe that in my 2nd and 3rd posts dated 8 March at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=11 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=12 I have accurately depicted what your views on 9/11 and related issues most likely are (that is, allowing for some minor quibbles about what terminology is used).

If you maintain that I have not accurately depicted your views, then I think the onus should be on you to state what your views are.

But, as I already wrote, I don't mind that much whether or not you do.

Pericles, I could just possibly have claimed that I deliberately reversed the sense of that sentence just to make absolutely sure that you were not quite as stupid as you seemed to want us to believe that you are.

The sentence should have read, "Pericles seems to need me to explain to him that, if the building security officers had done their utmost to protect the buildings they were paid to guard, and the lives of those who worked within, that that would have made the saboteurs' work no less difficult than if they had, instead, deliberately turned a blind eye or even actively collaborated with them."

It is interesting how you make less and less sense as we move through this little dance of ours.

>>Pericles, I am only here out of a sense of obligation. If you truly believe that by persisting in what you are doing, you are in any way helping me, then why won't you stop?<<

"Sense of obligation", daggett? How noble of you.

I will definitely stop, when I am no longer having fun, I can assure you.

>>Your explaining what your own views are is doing my work?<<

Hardly. But since you were the first to volunteer with an analysis - of sorts, anyway - I thought it uncharitable to deprive you of your flights of fancy.

>>If you maintain that I have not accurately depicted your views, then I think the onus should be on you to state what your views are.<<

I'm not sure where you have earned the right to an answer, daggett.

I asked, much earlier, that you take a stab at even halfway-credible means, motive and opportunity scenario, that might permit the vaguest possibility that a conspiracy might have been responsible.

Instead of answering, you simply re-hash all the old stuff you pick up from conspiracies-'r'-us-dot-com, and then expect me to take you seriously.

>>But, as I already wrote, I don't mind that much whether or not you do.<<

Then why bother to pretend that you are champing at the bit for my answers? It's not as if you have any real interest in them, after all.

>>Pericles, I could just possibly have claimed that I deliberately reversed the sense of that sentence just to make absolutely sure that you were not quite as stupid as you seemed to want us to believe that you are.<<

Nah. You stuffed up, that's all. Could happen to anyone

But it still doesn't address the question.

How would the guards activities have been different, if a different "conspiracy master" was behind it all?

After all, it is unlikely that they would have been in a position to check the credentials of their puppet-masters, would they?

Pericles wrote, "I will definitely stop, when I am no longer having fun, I can assure you."

So, are you now telling me that you're not here to help me peddle my loopy conspiracy theories, after all?

Whatever, I have not sought your 'help' and look forward to the day when you desist from what you are now doing on this forum.

---

Pericles, wrote, "I asked, much earlier, that you take a stab at even halfway-credible means, motive and opportunity scenario, that might permit the vaguest possibility that a conspiracy might have been responsible."

I have already done that abundantly over and over again. Pericles' claim that I have not is nothing more an excuse on his part to avoid acknowledging and arguing about the evidence such as is on http://ae911truth.org

Pericles asks "How would the guards activities have been different, if a different 'conspiracy master' was behind it all?"

I've got no idea what you are getting at, here, Pericles.

You really are going to have to learn to stop talking in riddles.

It's ok, daggett, I'm a patient person.

>>So, are you now telling me that you're not here to help me peddle my loopy conspiracy theories, after all?<<

I can do that, and have fun at the same time.

If you prefer, you can think of yourself as my personal social sciences project. You get to "peddle your loopy conspiracy theories", as you describe it, and I get to explore first-hand the thought processes that go into them.

Symbiotic, ain't it?

>>I have not sought your 'help' and look forward to the day when you desist from what you are now doing on this forum.<<

So long as you continue to provide me with useful and interesting material, I'm happy to continue.

Here's a good example of what I mean.

One of the noticeable traits in these conversations for side-issues to develop some steam of their own. This is exactly what has happened with the "WTC guards" issue.

A quick recap.

We were talking about the impossibility of the "hundreds of tonnes of explosives" theory.

You posited, that while it would be a doddle for Bush's men...

>>It's inconceivable that al Qaeda operatives could have penetrated the security of the three towers at the WTC<<

I pointed out that you had already covered this: it was the army of elevator mechanics wot did it.

You then explained that I should realize how...

>>WTC security deliberately turning a blind eye or even actively collaborating with domestic saboteurs, is entirely different<<

I assumed you meant "entirely different from collaborating with Al Qaeda saboteurs" and asked, in effect, "how would they have known they were Al Qaeda?"

That is the point at which your response became incoherent. Even your second explanation didn't answer the question.

So I pose it again: "How would the guards activities have been different, if a different "conspiracy master" was behind it all?"

>>I have already [provided means, motive and opportunity] abundantly over and over again<<

Must have missed that bit.

Care to have another go?

There's a sleight of hand here.

Let's recap:

Pericles refuses to acknowledge any of what Arjay and I maintain is evidence of the gaping holes in the Official Account of 9/11, such as at http://ae911truth.org

At first, he dishonestly maintained to Arjay that he had examined that site and found it all to be fallacious.

When I tried to get Pericles to substantiate that claim, he made excuses not to, but ended up admitting that he had not examined the material on that site after all.

So why does he refuse to even consider the evidence on
http://ae911truth.org ?

Because, he says (by accepting the words I had put to him) "... it is inconceivable that the necessary demolition charges could have been planted and wired in the WTC towers without the perpetrators having been found out and exposed."

I have explained over and over that if the management of the towers and the security had colluded with those who had planted the explosives, then it would not have been inconceivable.

If it is not inconceivable, then those supposedly independent agencies supposedly investigating the 9/11 attacks and the 3 WTC tower 'collapses' should have explored that scenario by questioning under oath those who owned and managed the buildings and those who ran their security and they should have sought evidence from anyone working in and around those towers in the years and months up to and on 9/11 who noticed anything suspicious.

If those in charge of security and those managing the buildings had not collaborated with any saboteurs, then this would have been borne out by the testimony provided.

However this was not done.

Yet, Pericles doggedly insists, without any basis, that saboteurs could not have planted the explosives with (or, indeed, without) the collusion of the collusion of security, etc.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The latest straw that Pericles has clutched at is to challenge me to explain to him what would be the difference between, on the one hand, the managers and building security working in collusion with the powerful domestic cabal centred around Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld et al, and on the other hand, the managers and building security working for what is supposedly an organisation sworn to destroy the US, namely al Qaeda.

So, to 'prove' the impossibility of the hypothesis put by myself and Arjay, Pericles maintains, that that hypothesis would have been no more difficult than the hypothesis that al Qaeda somehow had gained effective control of some of the world's most well recognised buildings on some of the world's most expensive real estate in the heart of New York City in the years prior to 9/11 without the FBI, the CIA or any other intelligence US agency having noticed.

Now I would suggest that that would have been considerably more difficult for al Qaeda to have accomplished.

Does Pericles really need me to explain to him why?

A couple of other things that occurred to me. If explosives were detonated, I imagine that would have been at the base of the structures. Why has anyone not reported such an explosion or sharp expulsion of dust from the bottom of the fallen buildings?

I seem to recall a TV doco which showed firemen (who survived) exploring the subway under the WTC building just before it collapsed. One of them had a camera and mike mounted on his helmet. If there had been an unusual explosion nearby, it should have been recorded and reported. To my knowledge, that hasn't been the case.

Secondly, if US agents had foreknowledge of the WTC attack, they presumably would also have known of the other two airplanes that were hijacked. So, does that mean they let one plane hit the Pentagon, but somehow stopped the one that was aimed at the White House? That's one big conspiracy that would have had to be very well planned.

When you say "let's recap", daggett, all you do is spin your favourite line, "Pericles refuses..."

What you should recap, is that you haven't provided a single - even remotely - feasible scenario in which your conspiracy could possibly have come to fruition.

Instead, you pick up on some video footage that you claim is somehow contentious, some dust particles that suddenly came to light weeks after the event, and some reports of "sounds-like" explosions, and knit them into a wild fantasy that involves the Bush family, the CIA, and a whole supporting cast of people all willing to murder their fellow-citizens, for no discernible reason.

That's a recap.

Guess what? Nobody but you gives a flying fig whether "Pericles refuses..." or not.

Even when it is true, as this one.

>>Pericles refuses to acknowledge any of what Arjay and I maintain is evidence of the gaping holes in the Official Account of 9/11<<

But this, on the other hand, is not accurate.

>>At first, he dishonestly maintained to Arjay that he had examined that site and found it all to be fallacious<<

I was absolutely honest, when I said that I had found it fallacious.

And this, of course, is pure daggett invention,

>>When I tried to get Pericles to substantiate that claim, he... ended up admitting that he had not examined the material on that site after all.<<

Go on, confess. You just made that up on the spot, didn't you.

>>I have explained over and over that if the management of the towers and the security had colluded with those who had planted the explosives, then it would not have been inconceivable.<<

And I have "explained over and over" that such scenarios only play out in movies.

You know the ones I'm talking about.

Incidentally, since you mentioned Arjay, any idea what became of his $120,000 bet?

He's been vewwy, vewwy quiet.

Pericles attempts to split hairs:

"And this, of course, is pure daggett invention,

">>When I tried to get Pericles to substantiate that claim, he... ended up admitting that he had not examined the material on that site after all.<<"

The fact that he won't even provide an example of what he says is "the farrago of circumstantial innuendo, wild imagination and self-fulfilling, circular arguments for a conspiracy that populate its pages" on http://ae911truth.org proves to me that either:

(a) he is lying about having examined the site; or
(b) he is lying that he has found no facts on that site.

---

I wrote, "I have explained over and over that if the management of the towers and the security had colluded with those who had planted the explosives, then it would not have been inconceivable."

Then Pericles wrote, "And I have 'explained over and over' that such scenarios only play out in movies."

So, presumably, Pericles would have us believe that real life can never imitate art and vice versa.

Whistling in the wind, daggett.

>>The fact that he won't even provide an example... proves to me<<

There's your main problem.

Right there.

If that's your concept of "proof", then no wonder you have been taken in by the 9/11 conspiracy doobs.

Proof is dependent upon the presence of evidence, daggett. Not the absence of something that you think kinda sorta orta be there.

Incidentally, in your haste, you omitted possibility (c)

(c) he couldn't find any facts to refute, just a whole load of ifs, buts and maybes.

You've read Lord of the Rings, haven't you? Now please disprove the existence of Mordor.

>>...presumably, Pericles would have us believe that real life can never imitate art and vice versa.<<

Generalizing from the particular has never been an entirely convincing method of argumentation. So you can "presume" all you like, that doesn't change the reality that to set up the series of actions that you imagine occurred would be quite literally impossible.

A supposition supported, I might add, by the lack of actual evidence.

Once again, the absence of evidence to deny your fantasy doesn't prove it.

In the same way that the absence of evidence to deny the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden does not guarantee their existence.

But I really do appreciate the real-life insight into the mind of the conspiratorialist that you are providing. It's quite fascinating.

Have a really great day.

Ah, Arjay, there you are. Caught you lurking on another thread, hoping I wouldn't notice.

>>Pericles,the offer is still current of $20,000.00 if you can disprove the physics and maths of WTC 7 and the towers of 911 presented by http://www.aetruth.org/ I'm sure John and Richard Gage will offer you even more easy money if you have the courage of your convictions.<<

Just two points to make here Arjay.

One. What happened to the $100,000 from John Bursill?

If you do have an email - you remember the one... "John Bursill emailed me recently and he offered a bet of $100,000.00 to detractor", you might like to publish, at least the important bit, here.

Not that we disbelieve you, of course.

Just that it is about as convincing as the rest of your 9/11 fantasies.

Two. Even on your own bet - and I have as much faith in the existence of that as I have in John Bursill's $100,000 - is still pending a few details from your good self. Such as who will decide? Just a small thing, but necessary. You wouldn't bet on a horse race if you weren't told where the winning post is, would you?

And hey, just a small additional point. Why do you think it is up to me to approach Bursill and Gage? They're the ones who have an interest in establishing their loony-tune theories, not me.

As I said, you're splitting hairs, Pericles.

You repeatedly assert that the material on http://ae911truth.org is either fallacious or too insubstantial to justify serious consideration (take your pick, Pericles), but refuse to cite even one example to substantiate your claim.

So, it's obvious to me, that unless Pericles is totally mad:

(a) he is lying about having examined the site; or
(b) he is not lying about having examined the site but he is lying when he claims that he has found no facts on that site.

And no-one has to accept my word for it -- they can look at http://ae911truth.org themselves.

---

Pericles wrote, "Once again, the absence of evidence to deny your fantasy doesn't prove it."

The only fantasy totally lacking evidence being put here is the official explanation of 9/11.

---

Also note how Pericles has failed completely to respond to my having pointed out two ludicrous implications that follow from his 'contributions':

1. That life cannot possibly imitate art and art cannot possibly imitate life

2. That for al Qaeda, a supposedly sworn enemy of the United States, to have obtained the control of the World Trade Center towers necessary to allow the demolition explosives to have been planted without detection would have been no more difficult than for people linked to the PNAC cabal in power in the White House to have obtained the necessary control.

Now, if Pericles could either confirm or deny that that is what he intended to say, then the discussion can move forward.

RobP,

In fact 9/11 hero William Rodriguez (http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Rodriguez) and his supervisor Anthony Saltalamacchia (http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Saltalamacchia) and a number of others reported massive explosions in the basement of the North Tower seconds BEFORE the impact of flight 11 above.

There is a vast amount of testimony confirming other explosions in and beneath the WTC buildings from then up until the 'collapse', including that from many newsreporters at the time. (See for example the Film "Loose Change - Final cut").

RobP wrote:

"Secondly, if US agents had foreknowledge of the WTC attack, they presumably would also have known of the other two airplanes that were hijacked. So, does that mean they let one plane hit the Pentagon, but somehow stopped the one that was aimed at the White House? That's one big conspiracy that would have had to be very well planned.:

Yes, it would have been a big conspiracy and well planned but it still would have required only several hundred to have inside knowledge.

However, it is obvious that it did not all go entirely according to plan.

It appears that WTC 7 was supposed to have collapsed not long after the two towers collapsed. With all the floating dust and debris obscuring the view, that would have avoided the embarrassment of the 2.25 seconds of free fall having been captured on video.

And it appears that Flight 93 was meant to crash into the Capitol Building. Had that happened, it seems likely that Bush, Cheney et all would have been in a position to completely suspend the US constitution.

daggett,

They are very interesting testimonies, to say the least. The people involved don't strike me as being BS artists. Either there are a whole lot of fabrications going on or there really is a big conspiracy. Based on these testimonies, I would have to agree with you.

What say ye, Pericles? Looks like daggett has indeed provided some proof.

Proof of what, exactly, RobP?

>>What say ye, Pericles? Looks like daggett has indeed provided some proof.<<

It doesn't surprise me at all that some of the accounts of that day's events are a little incoherent. It must have been an immensely traumatic experience for all concerned.

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," saidRodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office... Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

The assumption here seems to be that because the floor was shaking, the explosion must have come from below.

The guy was a hero. But even heroes can be mistaken, especially in such circumstances.

[Anthony Saltalamacchia]"The explosion came from -- I believe at first we believed that it came from the Mechanical Room. [Editor's note: The Mechanical Room was below them in a lower sub-basement .] Then we heard a series of other explosions that sounded up on the above levels of the building."

The confusion factor was high, obviously. "I believe at first we believed..." doesn't tell us what he later believed. And the "series of explosions" from above doesn't really match up with his colleague's "another explosion from way above."

It was a terrible experience. Using these poor people's - clearly incomplete and imperfect - narratives as evidence of a Bush/Cheney conspiracy to blow up their fellow citizens seems to me to be inordinately cruel.

Despicable, even.

Pericles, where has it been established that the testimony of all those who had reported explosions on September 2001, including William Rodriguez, Anthony Saltalamacchia, 118 members of the Fire Department of New Your City, a number of news reporters, etc., etc., etc. was all unreliable as you are attempting to imply it is?

Pericles,

I haven't got the time to go through the testimonies again to provide the quote, but one person was seen to have been subjected to a blast. Something about his skin hanging off him. That would seem to be something that's hard to fabricate.

Not taking sides here, but just asking some questions.

daggett,

Do you know if this person survived? If so, surely there was some test that could prove what material might have caused it.

RobP, You may be interested to know that Pericles has also dismissed the testimony of Dennis Tardio and Patrick Zoda in the video "9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow some of the dialogue of which I posted at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=11

---

The people that Pericles has denounced as "inordinately cruel" and "despicable" would have to include William Rodriguez and Anthony Saltalamacchia themselves as well as people who lost family members and spouses on the day including the Jersey Girls (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/173) Ellen Mariani (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE), Manny Baudillo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZc5oImGcjI), Bob Mcilvaine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErHfTQAvDnw).

I would suggest the fact that Pericles is prepared to describe these courageous people who were affected so tragically by 9/11 tells us a lot about the sort of person Pericles is.

---

RobP wrote, "Not taking sides here, but just asking some questions."

Please just bear in mind that I didn't begin to seriously question the official account of 9/11 until some time in 2007, six years later than I should have. Before, I accepted what the US Government had said of 9/11 as true.

If you continue to study this issue with an open and critical mind it won't take you long to know that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et all have lied through their teeth about 9/11.

Then asking yourself why would they have lied and studying more of the evidence will get you very close to the truth.

And when you understand the truth, as I did, I think you will want to take sides.

---

William Rodriguez's co-worker, whose face was disfigured by the blast was Filipe David. He is mentioned on the web page http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6625 (although I can't say if that was the best resource).

You just love inventing things for me to think, don't you daggett.

>>The people that Pericles has denounced as "inordinately cruel" and "despicable" would have to include William Rodriguez and Anthony Saltalamacchia themselves as well as people who lost family members and spouses on the day including the Jersey Girls<<

For your information - or "for the avoidance of doubt", as the lawyers say - I was denouncing people like you.

Who trade upon the suffering of these people, who went through horrors that simply can't be imagined in suburban Queensland, merely to satisfy their own sad fantasies.

Just in case you missed it, in your rush to find something pathetically self-gratifying to wibble on about, here is what I said.

"Using these poor people's - clearly incomplete and imperfect - narratives as evidence of a Bush/Cheney conspiracy to blow up their fellow citizens seems to me to be inordinately cruel."

That's you, daggett. Go to the mirror, and take a look, if you dare. If you actually see a reflection - which I'm beginning to doubt, by the way - that's who is trading upon the sufferings of others.

Incidentally, the same person who "heard the explosion under his feet" also made this statement:

"Also, The FBI never followed up on my claims or on the other part of my story when I told them before 9/11, I encountered one of the hijackers casing the north tower."

I wonder why.

Pericles, how is my own stance on 9/11 different from those I named, who lost loved ones and family members on 9/11?

---

Pericles wrote, "For your information ... I was denouncing people like you [who] trade upon the suffering of these people, ..."

And using the "the suffering of these people" in order to justify wars to grab oil and gas from people falsely accused of having caused suffering of these people is not "trade[ing] upon the suffering of these people", not "inordinately cruel" and not "despicable"?

Perhaps it's time Pericles also had a look in the mirror just to to see if he is able to see his own reflection.

---

Pericles continued sanctimoniously , "... who went through horrors that simply can't be imagined in suburban Queensland, ..."

No, I have to admit I have not experienced those horrors, nor the horror of death by cancer or chronic respiratory problems as a result of Condoleezza Rice telling me the WTC dust was safe to breathe, knowing that it was not (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=25).

I also haven't experienced the horrors of an invasion of my country by the United States. I am sure that that many who protested against the Vietnam War could also be accused of not having experienced the horror of napalm and phosphorous.

So, really all those pampered anti-Vietnam-war and anti-Iraq-war protestors should have stayed home in front of the telly or gone to the pub or beach instead, shouldn't they have, Pericles?

--

Also, Pericles, I am still waiting for you to either confirm or deny that this (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=14) is what you intended to say, earlier:

1. That life cannot possibly imitate art and art cannot possibly imitate life

2. That for al Qaeda, a supposedly sworn enemy of the United States, to have obtained the control of the World Trade Center towers necessary to allow the demolition explosives to have been planted without detection would have been no more difficult than for people linked to the PNAC cabal in power in the White House to have obtained the necessary control.

Not quite as strong as your usual come-backs, daggett. But equally mendacious.

>>Pericles, how is my own stance on 9/11 different from those I named, who lost loved ones and family members on 9/11?<<

Simple.

You are trading on their misfortune for some weird form of self-gratification.

Theirs is the natural reaction of people whose lives have been fundamentally changed by the events of 9/11.

Can you spot the difference?

>>using the "the suffering of these people" in order to justify wars to grab oil and gas from people falsely accused of having caused suffering of these people is not "trade[ing] upon the suffering of these people", not "inordinately cruel" and not "despicable"?<<

By referring to "justify[ing] wars to grab oil and gas from people falsely accused of having caused suffering", you are making the rather outrageous assumption that your analysis of the situation is accurate.

Since it is all in your imagination, the accusation doesn't hold up, for a millisecond. It's like the defence attorney telling the jury that he rests his entire case on the fact that "I believe my client, therefore you must acquit", while at the same time revealing that he has never actually been to law school.

And I am endlessly fascinated by the way you keep bringing up random snippets, for which you have patently failed to provide admissible evidence...

>>...the horror of death by cancer or chronic respiratory problems as a result of Condoleezza Rice telling me the WTC dust was safe to breathe<<

I know, it is the habit of you conspiracy-fetishists to practice this form of deception. But is does become somewhat tedious after a while.

>>So, really all those pampered anti-Vietnam-war and anti-Iraq-war protestors should have stayed home<<

Comparing your conspiracy theory over 9/11 with the Vietnam war isn't even worthy of comment. The fact that you cannot see the difference speaks volumes.

>>Also, Pericles, I am still waiting for you to either confirm or deny...<<

Enjoy the wait, daggett. It isn't going to make the slightest difference to your credibility.

Pericles wrote, "Enjoy the wait, daggett. ..."

In other words, Pericles has refused to confirm whether or not he agrees with two straightforward statements, the first of which is:

"That life cannot possibly imitate art and art cannot possibly imitate life."

At this point of time I can't think of anyone I know who would not hesitate to say that, of course, that statement is ridiculous.

Dose anyone here dispute that statement is ridiculous?

But Pericles can't bring himself to say that.

Why not?

Because his whole argument depends upon it.

The hypothesis of the 9/11 Truth Movement of people having gained access to the WTC Towers in order to plant the explosives with the collusion of the WTC security and the WTC managers is impossible because it is like a movie script. (Which one, I don't know, but I don't remember anything like that featuring in any of the "Die Hard" movies.)

Because it is like a movie script it therefore necessarily follows that it could not possibly have happened in the real world.

That was Pericles' sole excuse for refusing to discuss any of the evidence, for example in http://ae911truth.org

At least that was his excuse.

Since then, his excuse appears to have morphed into simply that he claims to have looked at all the evidence on http://ae91truth.org and has deemed it to be fallacious or insubstantial, but refuses to provide even one example.

Whatever his excuse, people should know better than just to accept Pericles' word.

Interesting conclusion daggett.

>>Whatever his excuse, people should know better than just to accept Pericles' word.<<

I haven't, anywhere, suggested that people should "accept my word". I have merely responded to the more outlandish of your claims, that some form of Bush/Cheney/Rice power pack was responsible for the planning and perpetration of 9/11.

I fully expect people to take a look - as I have - at the weird and wonderful scenarios that are imagined in the conspiracy-nut web sites, and come to their own conclusions.

You, on the other hand, seem to insist that if anyone disagrees with you, they must by definition be - now, what was the phrase, ah yes - a "model citizen of the New World Order".

Whatever that might mean.

Your debating technique seems to have been honed in the fine tradition of evasive politicians. Which number, it would appear, you have ambition to grace.

You would probably do extremely well. Especially in Queensland.

>>"Life cannot possibly imitate art and art cannot possibly imitate life.". At this point of time I can't think of anyone I know who would not hesitate to say that, of course, that statement is ridiculous.<<

If it makes you feel any happier, I will agree with your - somewhat broad - generalization. But since it is essentially meaningless, it cannot prove or disprove anything.

No doubt you will now claim this as solid evidence that your fable is somehow supportable. That's the kind of politician you aspire to be, I guess, so it's a good idea to get in some practice.

But reality will one day catch up with you. The problem will be, whether you recognize it when it hits.

So, Pericles finally concedes that life can, indeed, imitate art.

In this case 'art' would the movie script (even if the precise movie script has not been named).

So, presumably the fact that the hypothesis, that Pericles repeatedly demanded I provide to explain how the necessary explosives could have been planted and wired, need not be excluded, after all, simply because he claims that that hypothesis is reminiscent of some unspecified movie script.

So, what, then, is Pericles' case?

No doubt, Pericles prefers to keep it secret or prefers to force others to wade back through all the forum spam he has dumped here to work it out for themselves, but for the benefit of others, I will restate my understanding of it:

1. That the rulers of the US stood to gain nothing from 9/11.

2. That the rulers of the US would not be capable of deliberately murdering so many of their own citizens in order to advance their geo-political agendas.

As I have pointed out in the other forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=26), the US Government lied to First Responders telling them that the toxic WTC dust was safe to breathe, knowing that it was not, so, for me, at least, it would not be such an inordinate leap of logic to conceive of those people conspiring to bring about the outrght murder of almost 3,000 of their citizens.

As the Project for the New American Century anticipated in (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf 850K), the "new Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 provided the pretext they needed to advance their geo-political and domestic agenda.

So, Pericles' case seems, to me, very flimsy indeed.

"Flimsy" is a very brave word to introduce here, daggett, given your latest re-positioning.

>>presumably the fact that the hypothesis, that Pericles repeatedly demanded I provide to explain how the necessary explosives could have been planted and wired, need not be excluded<<

You know as well as I do, that the logistics are impossible to put together, even in fiction, without requiring massive suspension of disbelief. You consistently decline to even try to think it through, beyond suggesting that the lift engineers were responsible.

You simply rely on the mantra "Bush... Cheney... Rice... CIA... black ops... New World Order..." as if this somehow proves everything conclusively.

>>what, then, is Pericles' case? No doubt, Pericles prefers to keep it secret ...<<

No secret, daggett.

No secret at all.

My case is that your conspiracy theory simply does not make the slightest sense.

Unless, of course, you believe that there is a New World Order, complete with a mega-rich "elite" of "globalists" and "banksters", a "cabal" that is who are secretly orchestrating a takeover of world government.

In which case, of course, it makes all the sense in the world.

But happily, you are right on a couple of points:

"1. That the rulers of the US stood to gain nothing from 9/11.

2. That the rulers of the US would not be capable of deliberately murdering so many of their own citizens in order to advance their geo-political agendas."

The rest is of course nonsense.

>>the US Government lied to First Responders telling them that the toxic WTC dust was safe to breathe, knowing that it was not,<<

Pure invention.

>>As the Project for the New American Century anticipated... the "new Pearl Harbor" of 9/11 provided the pretext they needed to advance their geo-political and domestic agenda<<

Again, a deliberate and mendacious reading of a perfectly straightforward conditional clause.

"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

You are a piece of work, daggett, dredging up the same rubbish time after time.

Pericles wrote, "You know as well as I do, that the logistics are impossible to put together, even in fiction, without requiring massive suspension of disbelief. ..."

No I don't know, Pericles.

Where have you proven that if the management and security had colluded with those who had planted and wired the explosives, that it was logistically impossible?

Remember, Pericles, we have just established that arguing that this could be reminiscent of a movie plot does not constitute proof that it could not happen in real life.

I note Pericles claims that my claim that the US Government knowingly lied to the first responders is "pure invention".

---

Well, here are some of the lies to which I refer:

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe. ...
(ends)

So, unless that Pericles insists that Christie Whitman could not have known that the asbestos, heavy metals, PCB's, etc. present in the WTC dust has devastating consequences for health if ingested or inhaled, I would suggest that this was a deliberate lie that has condemned nearly all the First responders to ill health and thousands to death.

As First responder John Feal pointed out (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=25), this murderous lie came down the chain of command from the White House and through Condoleezza Rice to Christie Whitman.

(That, at least, deals with two of Pericles' more glaring fallacies to my own satisfaction. Others will need to spot the fallacies in the rest of Pericles' latest rant for themselves.)

Rant, eh daggett? That's rich, coming from you.

>>Where have you proven that if the management and security had colluded with those who had planted and wired the explosives, that it was logistically impossible?<<

Proving something "impossible", as you well know, is impossible.

So we have to rely upon good ol' common sense.

One of the aspects of the "demolition" theory has been nagging me, and I wonder if you could clarify.

Here's one (of many) descriptions.

"Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features... Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition"

http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

According to you, this was part of an orchestrated attack, by the US government, on its own people.

Right?

And to achieve it, you reckon, they planted thousands of tonnes of explosives throughout the building, to cause it to collapse.

Right?

To pull it all together would take substantial, detailed planning.

Right?

Then please explain to me why the conspirators allowed it to look as though the building had been professionally demolished with explosives.

Don't you think that one of them - being as they were so clever and all - might have said something along the lines of...

"Shouldn't we make sure it looks like it collapsed due to the fire? Won't it look suspicious if we collapse it into its own footprint, and leave nanothermite all over the place...?

Just asking.

And here's another thought. In fact it might be a useful exercise for you in your spare time.

Write out a script for the following screenplay:

You are addressing a number of lift mechanics. You have to convince them that laying thousands of tonnes of explosives, designed to kill their fellow-citizens, is a really neat idea.

If you can do that, it could be the start of a whole new career for you.

Firstly, note that Pericles has quietly stopped his denial that the US Government, including Condoleezza Rice, are guilty of knowingly having condemned almost all the First Responders to chronic ill health and thousands to death when they lied to them telling them that the toxic WTC dust was safe to breathe.

The evidence I have given is just the tip of a a massive, incontrovertible and damning body of evidence against the US Government, and it's inconceivable that Pericles could not be unaware of its existence well before now.

Yet, he persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged.

---

Also, note how nothing in Pericles' previous post substantiates his claim that it would have been logistically impossible for the necessary explosives to have been planted.

Obviously, it would have been a large-scale complex operation, but the US Government has massive resources at its disposal, including hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget.

Why, in these circumstances, is it inconceivable to Pericles that dozens of workers, pretending to be there for other purposes could have gained the necessary access to the structural columns to have planted the explosives in the months prior to 9/11?

Why is it inconceivable to Pericles that the necessary explosives, detonators and wires etc, could not have been brought inside, disguised as something else and carefully guarded by people instructed to keep prying eyes well away?

Why is it inconceivable to Pericles that prying eyes could have been kept well away from the planted explosives for the necessary period of time until they were eventually detonated?

The only way that it can be established that all of this was impossible for this hypothesis to have been thoroughly investigated. This is what 1124 qualified Architects and Engineers, who are members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) are demanding.

Why shouldn't that hypothesis be investigated, Pericles?

Pericles demands to know, "Then please explain to me why the conspirators allowed it to look as though the building had been professionally demolished with explosives."

Glad to see that Pericles has conceded that 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

Now where in this forum, or indeed, anywhere, has Pericles explained how a few random fires could cause the total destruction and dismemberment of a steel structured buildings at little more than free-fall speeds, in excatly the manner of controlled deomolitions, not once, but three times in one day, when it has never occurred before and never occurred since?

In answer to Pericles' question: no-one can know for sure until the 'collapse' is properly investigated, can they?

Perhaps the demolition did not go exactly according to plan. David Ray Griffin's hypothesis is that WTC 7 was meant to 'collapse' shortly after the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers.

All the dust would have prevented the embarrassment of the 2.25 seconds of free-fall descent having been captured on film.

Anyway, the only way we can know is if that is that were to be thoroughly investigated.

So, again, what are Pericles' reasons for opposing the demands by those 1124 architects and engineers for a new and proper investigation?

You have a vivid imagination, daggett, that's for sure.

>>Glad to see that Pericles has conceded that 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition.<<

I have made no such claim. It is the "9/11 conspiracy" web sites that do that, not me.

I was simply pointing out that if there was any consistency at all in their thinking, this particular thought-bubble must have occurred, at some point.

Which it obviously did not.

>>Perhaps the demolition did not go exactly according to plan. David Ray Griffin's hypothesis is that WTC 7 was meant to 'collapse' shortly after the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers<<

Rather thin reasoning, that.

Suggesting that the plan went wrong doesn't illuminate this particular quirk, though, does it daggett? After all, placing those explosives requires significant skill and precision implementation. Doesn't sound like a mistake could have resulted in anything quite so.... tidy.

>>All the dust would have prevented the embarrassment of the 2.25 seconds of free-fall descent having been captured on film.<<

You could plan for that? Wow.

>>So, again, what are Pericles' reasons for opposing the demands by those 1124 architects and engineers for a new and proper investigation?<<

Personally, I couldn't give a tuppenny toss.

I have simply been pointing out the obvious. That there has been no coherent justification so far for the additional expense, nor for putting witnesses through the ordeal again, more than eight years on,

The likelihood is also that you conspiracy-doofuses would not accept the legitimacy of a conclusion, unless it is in line with your fantasies. Would you?

But if those who pay the bill don't care, I certainly wouldn't.

OK, then, Pericles, suit yourself.

The 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks to Pericles nothing like the a controlled demolition.

Others should check for themselves in the YouTube video at video "WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

Why leading European demolition engineer Danny Jowenko said, when he first observed the WTC 7 'collapse' that it looked to him exactly like a controlled demolition will forever remain a mystery.

Why news presenter Dan Rather said immediately after he had watched WTC 7 'collapse' that it reminded him of a controlled demolition will also remain a mystery.

---

Pericles wrote, "this particular thought-bubble ... obviously did not [occur to you]."

Yes it did. Read my post about David Ray Griffin's hypothesis.

Why do you persist in telling such obvious and easily refutable lies, Pericles?

---

Pericles wrote, "I have simply been pointing out the obvious."

No you haven't.

All you have been doing is repeating baseless assertions over and over and over again.

The justification for a new inquiry is that the causes of what would have to be amongst the three worst engineering disasters in history have not been explained.

They have not been explained by you on any forums in which you have participated, nor anywhere else.

Hmmm. We seem to be running out of new material here, daggett.

Never mind. We'll just work with what we have.

>>The 'collapse' of WTC 7 looks to Pericles nothing like the a controlled demolition.<<

Actually, the point I was making was that it doesn't matter what I think in this instance. It is the inherent contradiction for the conspiracy-doobs, that the masterful planners that you envisage would have made such an elementary mistake in allowing it to look like one.

So the more evidence you try to put forward for the "controlled demolition" theory, the more unlikely it would be that it was a deliberate act.

>>Read my post about David Ray Griffin's hypothesis.<<

You didn't actually quote him, though, which would have been the polite thing to do. You simply mentioned in passing that the collapse "did not go exactly according to plan".

No mention of what the original plan might have been, how it might have been feasible, or even how the failure of that plan might have accounted for the "obvious" demolition scenario.

(I have noticed that it is one of the major feature of your protestations. You leave a lot out.)

>>All you have been doing is repeating baseless assertions over and over and over again<<

Moi? Pas du tout, mon cher.

You have so far provided every single one of the "baseless assertions".

My task here is to point out how silly they are.

Pericles wrote, "... It is the inherent contradiction for the conspiracy-doobs, that the masterful planners that you envisage would have made such an elementary mistake in allowing it to look like one."

Yes, sure, Pericles.

If it looked like a controlled demolition, it could not have been one. If it didn't, then it must have been one.

Very logical, Pericles.

The problem we now face is that Pericles refuses to tell us whether or not the WTC 7 'collapse' looks to him like a controlled demolition.

---

Pericles, were you hoping that no-one will have noticed that you have not answered the three questions I put to you:

Why, in these circumstances, is it inconceivable to Pericles that dozens of workers, pretending to be there for other purposes could have gained the necessary access to the structural columns to have planted the explosives in the months prior to 9/11?

Why is it inconceivable to Pericles that the necessary explosives, detonators and wires etc, could not have been brought inside, disguised as something else and carefully guarded by people instructed to keep prying eyes well away?

Why is it inconceivable to Pericles that prying eyes could have been kept well away from the planted explosives for the necessary period of time until they were eventually detonated?

?

Hmmm, you seem to be struggling again, daggett.

>>If it looked like a controlled demolition, it could not have been one. If it didn't, then it must have been one.<<

Not really.

If it was a controlled demolition, it was a fundamentally stupid oversight by a team of people that you credit with amazing powers of planning and execution.

On the one hand, super-powered conspirators controlling the world. On the other, a stupid mistake that gives the whole game away.

Go figure.

>>The problem we now face is that Pericles refuses to tell us whether or not the WTC 7 'collapse' looks to him like a controlled demolition.<<

I doubt if anyone cares what I think. I'm not even sure why you care, given that you fail to see the rank idiocy of your own theories. How would you suddenly be able to gauge the validity of mine?

>>Pericles, were you hoping that no-one will have noticed that you have not answered the three questions I put to you<<

I have. You just ignore them.

But here they are again.

re: planting of explosives: yes, it is conceivable, but not remotely feasible.

re: explosives: yes is is conceivable, but would require the most implausible suspension of disbelief, as the logistics are incredibly complex.

re: prying eyes: probably the most difficult aspect to swallow, given a) the masses of material that would have needed to be involved, b) the complexities of scheduling the people that would need to have been involved and c) the ridiculous concept that we haven't heard one tiny peep from a whistleblower, on what would have to be the story of the millennium.

As I have said before, you tend to pick on a tiny fragment and build a castle of improbability from one isolated, convoluted and obfuscated interpretation.

I tend to look at the whole picture and suggest that it might make an interesting action-movie script, at a pinch.

But would more likely be rejected on the basis that you need at least a modicum of credibility to drive the action.

Which it does not have.

Pericles wrote, "Hmmm, you seem to be struggling again, daggett."

I don't think so, Pericles.

How about letting others be the judge of that?

Pericles wrote "If it was a controlled demolition, it was a fundamentally stupid oversight by a team of people that you credit with amazing powers of planning and execution."

Where did I ever claim that they had "powers of planning and execution" so amazing that they could not possibly have made mistakes?

Anyway, I note that Pericles still refuses to tell us whether or not the WTC 'collapse' looks to him anything like a controlled demolition.

---

No Pericles, you had not answered the three questions I put to you.

The first two 'responses' that you have since posted are no more then re-statements of the assetions I asked you to substantiate.

In regard to the third:

I wrote: "Why is it inconceivable to Pericles that prying eyes could have been kept well away from the planted explosives for the necessary period of time until they were eventually detonated?"

Pericles 'responded', "... probably the most difficult aspect to swallow, given a) the masses of material that would have needed to be involved, b) the complexities of scheduling the people that would need to have been involved ..."

What is so impossibly complex about:

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 plantred and wired.

?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

As I had already agreed, all that is obviously a logistically complex operation, but if Pericles cannot conceive of how that could have been done, with the vast amounts of money and resources available to the US military and intelligence agencies, then he seems to be seriously deficient in imagination.

Pericles continued, "... and c) the ridiculous concept that we haven't heard one tiny peep from a whistleblower, on what would have to be the story of the millennium."

Pericles has dishonestly ignored my previous response that the conspirators would be unlikely to stop at to silence insiders from revealing the truth.

The mysterious deaths, just before they were ready to testify, of David Ferrier and Jack Ruby, both insiders in the conspiracy to murder JFK are just two examples that would surely bear this out.

Happy to do that, daggett.

>>How about letting others be the judge of that?<<

Anyone?

>>Where did I ever claim that they had "powers of planning and execution" so amazing that they could not possibly have made mistakes?<<

But such an elementary mistake?

"Won't it look suspicious if we make it look like a demolition?"

"Don't be silly. Who's gonna notice?"

Yeah, right.

>>The first two 'responses' that you have since posted are no more then re-statements of the assetions I asked you to substantiate.<<

That's all that is needed, I'm afraid. After all, you're the one making all the wild allegations about a Bush/Cheney/Rice conspiracy.

If it helps at all, let's call them opinions, rather than allegations. Which is actually all you are offering, after all.

In your opinion, there is a massive seekrit konspiracy that is guiding world affairs through a complex series of "black ops".

In my opinion, there's absolutely no evidence of this that survives the light of day.

Hence our considerable difference of opinion on what happened on 9/11.

>>Pericles has dishonestly ignored my previous response that the conspirators would be unlikely to stop at to silence insiders from revealing the truth.<<

Dishonest, eh? That's rich, coming from Mr. change-the-subject.

But an expected response - it must be a conspiracy, 'cos they.ve killed all the people who might talk...

...hope that story doesn't get around, the cabal of elites will rapidly run out of volunteers...

daggett: << Pericles wrote, "Hmmm, you seem to be struggling again, daggett."

I don't think so, Pericles.

How about letting others be the judge of that? >>

In my considered judgement, poor old daggett is definitely struggling.

As ever.

Pericles wrote, "But an expected response - it must be a conspiracy, 'cos they've killed all the people who might talk..."

No, Pericles, as you well know, I have never attempted to put that argument.

It is you who has attempted to argue that because no-one has so far spoken, that, therefore, could not have been a conspiracy.

---

Pericles wrote, "But such an elementary mistake? ... (blah) (blah)"

Actually, Pericles, I thought it unlikely that the conspirators would have actually planned to have WTC 7 'collapse' in full public view. That you are implying here otherwise, contray to what I had written earlier:

"David Ray Griffin's hypothesis is that WTC 7 was meant to 'collapse' shortly after the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers."

... is yet another example of your dishonesty.

---

Pericles wrote earlier, "Dishonest, eh? That's rich, coming from Mr. change-the-subject."

Pericles, I have shown you to be dishonest in your previous post, and not for the first time, by having ignored earlier responses to the same argument you put above.

And I have shown, just above how you have also been dishonest in your most recent post.

If you want to avoid acknowledging your own dishonesty by claiming that I have also been dishonest, then at least substantiate that allegation.

---

Note, how, in Pericles' most recent 'contribution' he has, yet again:

1. Failed to tell us whether or not the WTC 7 'collapse' looks to him like a controlled demolition;

2. Failed to explain how it would have been logistically impossible for the explosives necessary to demolish WTC 7 could have been planted given the hypothesis I outlined and given the vast resources at the disposal of the US military and spy agencies.

Y'know, daggett, you are an absolute motherlode of fine detail, on the thought processes of the dedicated conspiracy-nerd.

Your overall argument goes like this:

daggett: I think the official explanation is a load of baloney.

[chorus}: you're talking out of the back of your neck, daggett

daggett: oh yeah? prove me wrong

{chorus}: but you haven't said anything that makes any sense yet. How can we argue against the richness of your imagination?

daggett: that's dishonest. stop being dishonest. if you were honest, you'd know you were being dishonest and admit it

[chorus] ¿Qué?

daggett: [chorus], I have shown you to be dishonest in your previous post, and not for the first time, by having ignored earlier responses to the same argument you put above. And I have shown, just above how you have also been dishonest in your most recent post.

In all of this dancing about, you manage to evade and avoid the most simple of questions: how did it happen?

In fact, even more simple: what happened?

You can dredge up the tiniest speck of red dust to "prove" a global conspiracy by the cabal of elites.

But you cannot actually say what happened.

I have learnt a great deal about conspiracy theorists from your posts, daggett, for which I am grateful. And one of the things I have learnt for sure and certain, is that you will not give a straight answer to a straight question.

I fully expect your next post - and probably the ones after that as well - to start off with "Once again, Pericles has failed..."

Don't disappoint me, will you.

And for goodness' sake, don't whatever you do answer any of my questions directly.

That would blow all my theories about you people right out of the water.

Firstly, to correct a grammatical error. The end of my last post should have read:

Note, how, in Pericles' most recent 'contribution' he has, yet again:

...

2. Failed to explain how it would have been logistically impossible for the explosives necessary to demolish WTC 7 to have been planted given the hypothesis I outlined and given the vast resources at the disposal of the US military and spy agencies.
(ends)

---

Secondly, thank you Christopher M for yet again expressing disparagement towards me, which, as you well know, I always take as a huge compliment.

---

Pericles clearly does not like me drawing the attention of others to his dishonesty, yet continues to argue demonstrably dishonestly. Here is yet another example:

Pericles wrote, "... you manage to evade and avoid the most simple of questions: how did it happen?"

Pericles, 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.

All I can do is tell you WHAT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED and WHAT I think COULD HAVE HAPPENED, based on the available evidence.

And I believe I have done that.

What you have not done is demonstrate how what, I say COULD HAVE HAPPENED, COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

You have also failed to show what, I say COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, COULD HAVE HAPPENED.

And you have also failed to provides us with a satisfactory reason as to why there should not be a new investigation so that we can all find out WHAT DID HAPPEN and HOW IT HAPPENED.

---

I also note that once again Pericles has included within his latest 'contribution' (as he and PynchMe also have in the other forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=27)) the tired and worn ruse of pretending to be only participating in order to 'study' the minds of 'conspiracy nutters' like myself.

They do this, of course, in order distract the attention of others from the fact that they have provided no evidence whatsoever for the case that they are attempting to peddle.

I think it might be time for you to accept the obvious, daggett.

>>They do this, of course, in order distract the attention of others from the fact that they have provided no evidence whatsoever for the case that they are attempting to peddle.<<

It is you (look in the mirror - yes, that guy) who is trying to "peddle" a "case".

I do not have a "case" to "peddle". My function is simply to point out to you, each time you "peddle" your "case", that you are in the grip of a massive delusion.

And then sit back and watch the results.

Because, despite what you may be telling yourself, you are a most interesting specimen. Certainly the most impressive on this forum, as I am sure any of the onlookers will agree.

It is probably just a natural function of society, that it creates a bunch of people who desperately want to believe that there is something going on that is out of their control.

A good percentage of those people use religion as the catch-all explanation for everything that confuses them.

A far smaller, but equally fanatical, group uses the mysterious "cabal" of "elites" to fill the void. There is "something out there" that they don't understand, and they need to have an explanation.

Imaginary groups of people work just as well as imaginary deities for that purpose.

The vast majority of my posts here, probably as much as eighty percent I would guess, would be addressing one or other of these human traits.

So when you say:

>>the tired and worn ruse of pretending to be only participating in order to 'study' the minds of 'conspiracy nutters' like myself<<

... you couldn't be more wrong.

But of course, it is important for you to believe that we are also part of the conspiracy, so it is natural for you to reject what is, let's face it, the only logical explanation why anyone would bother to discuss the topic with you in the first place.

daggett: << thank you Christopher M for yet again expressing disparagement towards me, which, as you well know, I always take as a huge compliment. >>

You're most welcome, James Sinnamon. After all, you did ask.

May I add that you seem to be struggling more than ever.

I note that Professor of Human Behavioural Psychology Pericles has failed to address any of the substantive points including my complaints of his dishonest debating tactics.

I also note that he commences his most recent 'contribution' by (again) pronouncing 'obvious' and, hence, presumably proven what he has demonstrably failed to prove.

Then, predictably, he accuses me of doing what I have accused him of doing:

"It is you (look in the mirror - yes, that guy) who is trying to 'peddle' a 'case'."

Sure, Pericles. If you say it often enough, it must be true.

Anyway, Professor Pericles, if you insist that this discussion of my psychology (as opposed to the psychology of those who unquestioningly accept the word of established authority) is not simply a ruse to conceal the fact that you have no case, then you could begin by addressing the substantive points that you have failed to so far:

1. Tell us how fire alone caused WTC 7 to collapse into a neat pile of debris in 6.5 seconds including 2.25 seconds of initial free fall acceleration along its entire length and breadth in a manner that looks to me, and a large number of experts including 1137 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org), exactly like a controlled demolition.

... or, if you can't do that:

2. Explain how (rather than simply assert that) it is logistically impossible for the US Government and Intelligence Agencies, with the vast resources available to them, to have planted the explosives necessary to demolish WTC 7.

---

Professor Pericles wrote, "It is probably just a natural function of society, that it creates a bunch of people who desperately want to believe that there is something going on that is out of their control."

Funny, isn't it, that none of this was at all applicable to me until at least six years after 9/11?

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 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.

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.

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?

This is exactly where our paths diverge, daggett.

>>If the IT systems that, according to Rumsfeld himself on 10 September 2001, allowed $2.3 trillion to go missing...<<

As I pointed out to you very carefully, Rumsfeld said no such thing. Check for yourself.

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

"According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."

Do you understand the difference between "cannot track, according to some estimates", and embezzled?

You see what I mean about repetition? You keep making the same silly statements, I keep referring you to the same source material.

>>what makes you so confident that there were no missing hundreds of billions?<<

You make the allegations, daggett. It is not up to me to set up an audit, it is up to you to provide concrete evidence. Which you can't.

Every so often, you even admit it. Like when you tell me it "isn't your job" to describe what you believe happened on 9/11.

That is what makes me "so confident".

>>does that mean that you reject the testimony of whistleblowers, John Minnery and Franklin C. Spinney?<<

And exactly what "testimony" was that, daggett?

Spell it out for us, don't be so lazy. Do what I do for you, which is find the transcript and provide an excerpt - I can't be arsed to wade through yet another tedious video.

Then we can discuss it.

Note how Professor Pericles has yet to reveal whether it is himself or me who is to be the subject of his 'study' on 'the inability to let go' syndrome.

---

Professor Pericles, could you explain to me sometime, the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions?

Professor Pericles wrote, "You make the allegations, daggett. It is not up to me to set up an audit, it is up to you to provide concrete evidence. Which you can't."

I can see that Pericles has not even bothered to read (or has pretended not to have read) how Pentagon accountant John Minnery was unable to learn what happened to $300 million.

If he couldn't find out what happened, what chance would I stand of working out what happened to the money?

Professor Pericles demanded, "Spell it out for us, don't be so lazy. ..."

The video with the essential allegations at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo is all of 2'31" long.

Besides, if you refuse to acknowledge John Minnery's evidence of not being able to track down $300 million, why should I bother typing out any further evidence for you to ignore?

Why do you think that whistleblower Frank C. Spinney would have said "Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year after year." if it was not true?

The fact that they cannot track some transactions does not mean that money has been embezzled, daggett.

>>Professor Pericles, could you explain to me sometime, the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions?<<

The fact that they cannot track some transactions does not mean that money has been diverted to the CIA, or to that cabal of elite banksters that you believe are creating the New World Order.

The fact that they cannot track some transactions does not mean money has been used to set explosives in various New York buildings, on the offchance that some hijacked planes might fly into them.

>>If he couldn't find out what happened, what chance would I stand of working out what happened to the money?<<

My point, precisely.

If he couldn't track it to your cabal of elite banksters, what on earth makes you think that's where it ended up? Surely we would have heard by now, with all these whistleblowers around the place.

It is because you can only see events through the lens of a conspiracy for world domination.

To the rest of the world, it is simply clerical incompetence.

To you, on the other hand, it is "evidence" that secret bank accounts are being used to persuade hundreds of people to murder their fellow-citizens in cold blood.

Incidentally, given the popularity of whistleblowing, how come there hasn't been a single peep heard that supports your loony theories about 9/11?

>>Note how Professor Pericles has yet to reveal whether it is himself or me who is to be the subject of his 'study' on 'the inability to let go' syndrome.<<

It's important that I leave some things for people to work out for themselves, daggett, rather than hand-hold them to every conclusion.

Note that Pericles has still failed to explain "the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions" as I had asked of him.

---

Professor Pericles, if there is no difference between the Pentagon not being able to keep track of $2.3 trillion and $2.3 trillion having gone missing, then how can you seriously maintain the the hundreds of billions of dollars, from which the funds to demolish the WTC towers could have been obtained were ''mythical'?

Professor Pericles wrote, "It's important that I leave some things for people to work out for themselves, ..."

OK, Professor Pericles, assuming that is me who is to be the subject, of your 'study' on "the inability to let go" syndrome, can you pease explain why you should not, instead, be the subject?

Your latest protestation at least has the virtue of brevity, daggett.

>>Note that Pericles has still failed to explain "the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions" as I had asked of him.<<

Ok, perhaps a simpler explanation is needed.

I use my credit card at Woolies. A month later check my credit card statement against the slips, and the charge is on the Visa records, but I don't have the corresponding receipt.

Without the slip of paper, which I probably misfiled somewhere, I am unable to keep track of my finances.

Has the $128.32 that I spent in Woolies "disappeared", daggett?

Large bureaucracies have the same problems, only larger. That was what Rumsfeld was complaining about

>>OK, Professor Pericles, assuming that is me who is to be the subject, of your 'study' on "the inability to let go" syndrome, can you pease explain why you should not, instead, be the subject?<<

Again, all these assumptions.

What is, is.

Why should it bother you anyway, given these massive conspiracies that you are helping the world unravel. Or something.

Pericles' 'explanation' of "the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions" is playing games with words.

If he is able to work out, from his Credit Card statement what he spent his money on, whether or not he has his receipts, then, clearly the money has not gone missing. If, on the other hand, he cannot then it has gone missing, or as Donald Rumsfeld would have put it, he would have been unable to have kept track of those transactions.

However as every statement on a credit card statement, according to my understanding, at least shows to whom the money was paid, then none of the money would have gone missing in the strict sense of the word although it might be difficult to establish for what the money was paid.

The critical point remains, if the books were routinely cooked and up to a quarter of the Pentagon's budget was unaccounted for each year as Frank C. Spinney has alleged, then obtaining the funds to stage all 9/11 including the demolitions of the three WTC towers would have presented no insurmountable difficulty to the 9/11 conspirators.

---

Professor Pericles 'explains' why he should not be the subject of his 'study' of "the inability to let go" syndrome and I should be:

"What is, is."

Pericles, I am every bit as entitled to persist in this forum to uphold the truth as you are entitled to persist in this forum in order to uphold a lie.

So stop wasting everyone's time with your childish pretence of 'studying' what you pretend to have judged as psychologically aberrant behaviour on my part.

It is no more psychologically aberrant than your own.

It seems, daggett, that you refuse to understand even the simplest explanation, if it disagrees with your preconceptions.

>>Pericles' 'explanation' of "the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions" is playing games with words.<<

Hardly. It is a clear and complete argument that "unreconciled" does not mean "stolen".

However, more importantly, it is a clear and complete argument that "lost track of" does not indicate "embezzled", and "embezzled" does not mean "funnelled into secret bank accounts", nor does "funnelled into secret bank accounts" mean those accounts are held by a "cabal of elite banksters"

So the evidence that they might actually have been used for the purposes you describe, is infinitesimally small.

>>then obtaining the funds to stage all 9/11 including the demolitions of the three WTC towers would have presented no insurmountable difficulty to the 9/11 conspirators.<<

But even were you to make an even vaguely plausible case for this, which you are unable to do, the fact remains that you still do not have the slightest clue as to means, motive or opportunity.

You are tilting at windmills.

Note how Pericles is no longer insisting that "$2.3 billion in transactions disappearing" is somehow different from "not being able to keep track of" $2.3 trillion in transactions.

Nevertheless, in his determination to avoid having to acknowledge his dishonesty, Pericles continues to play games with the meaning of words:

"Hardly. It is a clear and complete argument that 'unreconciled' does not mean 'stolen'.

"However, more importantly, it is a clear and complete argument that "lost track of" does not indicate ... (blah, blah, rant, rhubarb, rant, blah, blah)"

No doubt the directors of Enron would have used similar arguments to dissuade auditors from looking too closely at their financial transactions.

Pericles wrote, "So the evidence that they might actually have been used for the purposes you describe, is infinitesimally small."

Pericles, you have not proven that sufficient funds could not easily have been found to pay for the staging of 9/11 from amongst the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld admitted he could not keep track of.

Your whole justification for refusing to provide an explanation for how WTC 7 'collapsed' was your claim that funds to have caused the 'collapse' of WTC 7 by means other than fire, namely the planting of demolition charges, could not have possibly been found.

However, I have shown that ample funds were available.

Pericles wrote, "the fact remains that you still do not have the slightest clue as to means, motive or opportunity."

The means are the huge amount of funds unaccounted for, as described, above as well as a huge amount of human and material resources.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

If Pericles has, after all this time, finally been able to bring himself to concede (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=29) that the German Government of 1933 had a motive to commit an act of terrorism then blame it on its political opponents in order to justify the removal of their civil, political and human rights, then he should be able to understand that US Government also had a motive in 2001 to commit an act of terrorism against its own citizens also in order to be able to blame it on others and use that as an excuse to strip away constitutional rights of its citizens and then launch illegal wars against Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in order to gain control of natural resources.

The opportunity was the control of the buildings in which much of the crime was perpetrated, by people working in collusion with the cabal who perpetrated that crime and the ability of that cabal to direct investigations away from uncovering evidence of those people's complicity in that crime, as the 9/11 Commission and NIST did.

This has been abundantly explained to Pericles over and over again.

So, what then is his excuse for continuing to refuse to offer an explanation as to how WTC 7 could have collapsed to dust in 6.6 seconds exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition as a result of fire alone?

You do ramble on, daggett.

We must have covered the same ground more than a dozen times by now, and still you talk ten times as much as you listen.

Or write ten times as much as you read. Same difference. It means that you i) ignore anything you disagree with and ii) repeat the same old stuff over and over, as if repetition will somehow make it true.

Sad, really.

>>Note how Pericles is no longer insisting that "$2.3 billion in transactions disappearing" is somehow different from "not being able to keep track of" $2.3 trillion in transactions.<<

How on earth did you read that into my post? That's simply delusional.

>>Pericles, you have not proven that sufficient funds could not easily have been found to pay for the staging of 9/11 from amongst the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld admitted he could not keep track of.<<

Again, for the hundredth time. You cannot prove a negative. You can only work on the balance of probabilities, which in this case are stacked up high against the remotest possibility that funds were channeled into your secret society.

>>However, I have shown that ample funds were available.<<

You have done no such thing. You merely assume, as you always do, that because your imaginary secret cabal of elites can do anything, getting their hands on other people's billions without being noticed is just another daily task for them.

It isn't. Pure fantasy.

>>...US Government also had a motive in 2001 to commit an act of terrorism against its own citizens also in order to be able to blame it on others and use that as an excuse to strip away constitutional rights of its citizens<<

What exactly was that motive, daggett? Recruiting Americans to murder their fellow-citizens in cold blood is a non-trivial task. They would need a little more than "help us steal some oil", I would suggest.

>>The opportunity was the control of the buildings in which much of the crime was perpetrated<<

As usual, you provide no evidence for this. Just another quick trip into Die Hard territory.

Pericles wrote, "How on earth did you read that into my post? That's simply delusional."

It's not delusional. It's right there in your previous post (Sunday, 4 April 2010 7:19:19 PM) immediately before my last double post.

I wrote, "Pericles' 'explanation' of "the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions" is playing games with words."

Then Pericles responded, "Hardly. It is a clear and complete argument that 'unreconciled' does not mean 'stolen."

This is what I call a sleight of hand.

I may or may not believe that the missing funds were stolen, however in that post was to show that your claim that the meaning of the words:

"not being able to keep track of $2.3 trillion in transactions"

... is no different from the meaning of the words:

"$2.3 billion in transactions are missing"

What Rumsfeld was doing in that Press conference of 10 September 2001 was what all of us should have been well familiar with long ago, that is, 'spinning' the appalling reality of the state of Pentagon finances in which over $8,000 of funds for every man, woman and child in the US had not been accounted for by the Pentagon, into terms he judged would be more palatable to public opinion.

Nowhere else in Pericles' post did he either:

1. maintain that the underlying meaning of the two phrases was different; or

2. admit he was wrong.

Instead he simply changed the subject.

---

The rest of Pericles' post contains only arguments I have already answered many times before, so I won't be responding further.

Anyone who still thinks that they can learn anything whatsoever about 9/11 by reading anything that Pericles has to say about it is welcome to read it.

This is "Through the Looking Glass" material, daggett.

Your explanation of the difference between funds being missing, and accounts unable to be reconciled, deserves special mention under the heading "wtf?"

After all your froth and bubble, the fact remains that you haven't a skerrick of evidence that a) any funds were misappropriated or b) even if they were, that they somehow ended up in the bank account of the secret cabal of elites.

Nor yet that this mysterious team of slick banksters then used it to bribe a bunch of folk to murder innocent fellow-Americans, in cold blood.

Let alone why they would ever contemplate doing such a thing.

While on the topic, daggett, do tell.

What would be your price?

How much would the shadowy representatives of the New World Order have to pay you to, say, blow up the Opera House and everyone in it?

Just a ballpark amount will do. Bearing in mind that it will have to buy your silence for as long as you live. And remembering that you could write some memoirs to be opened after you're gone...

Go on, tell us. How much?

I'd be tempted to describe the whole concept as a house of cards. But that would imply that you were able to get at least one card to stand on top of another.

Oh, I just noticed.

>>The rest of Pericles' post contains only arguments I have already answered many times before, so I won't be responding further.<<

Ah, shame. Just when it was getting interesting.

>>Anyone who still thinks that they can learn anything whatsoever about 9/11 by reading anything that Pericles has to say about it is welcome to read it.<<

I dunno. It seemed as if we were finally getting somewhere, too.

Pericles continues playing games with the meanings of words:

"Your explanation of the difference between funds being missing, and accounts unable to be reconciled, deserves special mention under the heading 'wtf?'"

The term used, I thought was not "accounts unable to be reconciled". Rumsfeld's words were:

"... we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."

As I said that means to me precisely the same as "$2.3 trillion in transactions went missing".

---

If anyone else here can point out the relevance of anything else in Pericles' latest 'contribution' to the discussion at hand, then please let me know and I will have another look at it.

I think we discussed this earlier, daggett.

>>Rumsfeld's words were: "... we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." As I said that means to me precisely the same as "$2.3 trillion in transactions went missing".<<

And as I pointed out to you, they do not mean the same thing. At all.

Incidentally, you quote Rumsfeld out of context.

The full sentence from which you extracted your phrase was "According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."

Let's do him justice, and quote the entire paragraph.

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. 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."

Go back to my credit card slip analogy, and you will see - if you care to look, that is - that the inability to reconcile an account does not, at all, indicate that an amount of money is missing.

>>If anyone else here can point out the relevance of anything else in Pericles' latest 'contribution' to the discussion at hand, then please let me know and I will have another look at it.<<

You don't honestly think that anyone else can be bothered to follow our ramblings, do you?

Nope. It's just you and me.

But I quite understand that you wouldn't want to answer the "how much would it take" question.

After all, the most difficult part of the operational aspects of your theory, is to imagine that there are people who would willingly accept money to kill their fellow Americans in cold blood.

Personalizing it by trying to quantify the pricing mechanism at the level of the individual, simply allows us to assess better whether it could ever have happened that way.

I doubt a million would be enough, would it?

Ten, perhaps?

Fifty?

It's an uncomfortable thought, isn't it?

Pericles, you have yet to explain the difference between the Pentagon not being able to keep track of the missing $2.3 trillion on the one hand and those $2.3 trillion having gone missing on the other.

It's clear to me, as well as to whistleblowers John Minnery and Frank C. Spinney, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and, I expect, all thinking Americans who have no wish to cover up this scandal, that the two mean exactly the same thing.

Until we know what happened to that $300 million that John Minnery could not find, then as far as I am concerned it has gone missing and could well have found its way towards paying whoever were the saboteurs were who planted the explosives in WTC 7 and the twin towers as well as the material used.

The same goes for any the remaining $2.3 trillion unaccounted for.

The only 'discuss[ion]' we had 'earlier' was your repeated attempts to weasel out concede that by playing games with the meanings of words and my countering those attempts. One example was substituting the word "embezzled" for "gone missing" and then telling us that the meaning of the Pentagon not being able to keep track of $2.3 trillion has a different meaning from that money having gone missing, which it obviously does (at least until we learn what did happen to that money).

Your explanation of how credit card statements are reconciled or not reconciled with receipts is no more than that and tells us nothing about what happened to a quarter of the Pentagon's budget.

It doesn't matter a jot whether the words are taken in or out of the context of Rumsfeld's encompassing spin, the fact remains, the money has gone missing.

Many organisations around the world have functioned perfectly well with or without legacy software systems as long as the managers of those organisations have had the will to properly account for all the funds used by those organisations.

(tobecontinued)

The fact remains, that Rumsfeld himself was warned of these problems during his first term as Defence Secretary by Frank C. Spinney. The fact also remains, judging from that encounter in Congress between McKinney and Rumsfeld that five years after Rumsfeld, acknowledged the problem of the missing $2.3 trillion, nothing had been done to fix the computer system that Rumsfeld held responsible for the problems.

Anyone with a healthy scepticism of established authority would have concluded from that that the reason that the 'problem' was not fixed was that it suited Rumsfeld's purposes perfectly not to have the 'problem' fixed.

But Pericles, apparently, would have us believe differently.

---

Pericles' childish attempt to grill me on how much I would ask to be paid for to blow up the Sydney Opera House and whoever was inside at the time, is no more than an attempt to obscure the obvious reality that in the US and the rest of the world there would have obviously been thousands of professional killers with the skills necessary to perform the required work for the right price.

As always, daggett, gotta love your logic.

>>Until we know what happened to that $300 million that John Minnery could not find, then as far as I am concerned it has gone missing and could well have found its way towards paying whoever were the saboteurs were who planted the explosives in WTC 7 and the twin towers as well as the material used. The same goes for any the remaining $2.3 trillion unaccounted for.<<

By the same token, the estimated "losses" of $65 billion from the Madoff fraud would have ended up in the same place. Here's one of those maps that you like so much - haven't picked a Rothschild yet, but there's bound to be one in there somewhere

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123685693449906551.html?mod=djemalertNEWS#project%3DMADOFF-TREE-0902%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

Go on, prove me wrong.

>>Pericles' childish attempt to grill me on how much I would ask to be paid for to blow up the Sydney Opera House and whoever was inside at the time, is no more than an attempt to obscure the obvious reality that in the US and the rest of the world there would have obviously been thousands of professional killers with the skills necessary to perform the required work for the right price.<<

And you know this, how?

From Die Hard movies, perhaps?

Tell me more about these "thousands of professional killers". Are they American? If not, how do you prevent them from selling their story, once they are safe in their home land again? After all, they are merely mercenaries. Anything for money, eh?

But if they are American, what is their price?

Il prezzo.

The problem you have, daggett, is that you don't think things through. If you did, you would realize that your theories are chock-full of holes. You cannot simply dismiss the reality that real people - not actors in a movie script - actually have to take part in your scheme at some point.

And that's where boring old real life comes into play.

Yet another example of blatant dishonesty on Pericles's part:

Pericles quotes me:

"Until we know what happened to that $300 million that John Minnery could not find, then as far as I am concerned it has gone missing and could well have found its way towards paying whoever were the saboteurs were who planted the explosives in WTC 7 and the twin towers as well as the material used. The same goes for any the remaining $2.3 trillion unaccounted for."

Then Pericles 'responds':

"By the same token, the estimated 'losses' of $65 billion from the Madoff fraud would have ended up in the same place. ..."

I thought 'could' (my words) and 'would' (your words) had two different meanings.

When are you going to cease resorting to these dishonest debating tactics, Pericles?

---

The rest of Pericles rant is his attempt to deny what I assumed to be the well understood reality that there are thousands of professional killers in the US perfectly capable of murdering fellow US citizens if they were paid to do so.

Whilst Pericles appears touchingly confident that professional killers in the US would never stoop to murdering fellow US citizens, whatever they may be capable of doing to the citizens of other countries, I won't be satisfied until the matter is properly investigated and all outstanding questions related to the 'collapses' of the WTC towers as well as 9/11, in General have been answered.

You just love berating others for their "blatant dishonesty", don't you daggett?

>>Yet another example of blatant dishonesty on Pericles's part<<

But I must admit to a sense of bewilderment over your latest accusation.

>>I thought 'could' (my words) and 'would' (your words) had two different meanings<<

Well yes, actually they do.

But my point was that if your money could have, then Madoff's would have, too. After all, in both cases the money went "missing" - lost, stolen, strayed, unaccounted for, untraceable, untracked, whatever.

You may choose to disagree with the logic, but it is hardly "dishonest" in most people's definition of the term.

If only everyone was pathologically incapable of dishonesty, like you.

Talking of which, you still have not provided any background to your supposition that there is...

>>...the well understood reality that there are thousands of professional killers in the US perfectly capable of murdering fellow US citizens if they were paid to do so.<<

Well understood, by whom? Do you have any references that we can check, perhaps? Or maybe they are in the Yellow Pages, under "International Assassins"...

>>Whilst Pericles appears touchingly confident that professional killers in the US would never stoop to murdering fellow US citizens...<<

I'm just curious, daggett. You seem to know so much about these so-called "professional killers", who apparently live and work in the US, and are happy to murder their fellow citizens in cold blood, I was wondering if you have their tariff handy.

The reason for asking, just in case you were wondering, is that these pieces of information are the building blocks that could - or even would - provide your fantasy with a modicum of credibility.

You readily admit, when pressed, that you haven't the faintest idea how it was all done ("it's not up to me to solve the mystery", I believe you once confessed), yet you continue to insist that the secret cabal of elites coordinated it all.

If you had the faintest clue what "it all" consisted of, you might have a more interesting case to make.

Pericles wrote (on 1 Apr 2010) "There are no 'paid full-time disinformation peddlers', except in your imagination."

Of course, a paid full-time liar would say that, wouldn't he.?

A practised paid liar will also endlessly repeat the same lie no matter how many times it has been rebutted:

"You readily admit, when pressed, that you haven't the faintest idea how it was all done ('it's not up to me to solve the mystery', I believe you once confessed), ..."

Of course I never "readily admit[ted] that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" and Pericles knows full well he won't be able to show that I did.

What I did do at one point was to object (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=4) to Pericles' own resort to Rule 14 of "25 rules of Disinformation":

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, ... (see http://911blogger.com/node/20684)

As Pericles well knows I have provided a lot more detail about how I believe 9/11 was perpetrated than he has provided any detail about how he claims to believe it happened.

---

Pericles wrote, "You seem to know so much about these so-called 'professional killers', ..."

Why do I "seem to know so much", Pericles?

You're the one who is claiming to know for a fact that in the US population of close to 300 million in 2001 there would not have been sufficient numbers of people prepared to carry out the September 11 attacks.

All I wrote was "I won't be satisfied until the matter is properly investigated and all outstanding questions related to the 'collapses' of the WTC towers as well as 9/11, in general, have been answered."

Oh really, daggett?

>>Of course I never "readily admit[ted] that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" and Pericles knows full well he won't be able to show that I did.<<

I remembered it like this:

"'it's not up to me to solve the mystery', I believe you once confessed"

And these were your exact words:

"I am not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so."

Not that different, eh?

Do you remember now, or shall I get the full post for you?

>>As Pericles well knows I have provided a lot more detail about how I believe 9/11 was perpetrated than he has provided any detail about how he claims to believe it happened.<<

That's rot. You have simply waffled on about a New World Order, and the collapse of WTC7.

When asked to suggest means, motive and opportunity, you come up totally empty.

Incidentally, I don't "claim to believe" how it happened.

I simply select, on the basis of logic, plausibility and the weight of evidence, the theory that makes more sense.

Yours I rejected, on the basis that it defied logic, had zero credibility, and relied upon suspect assumptions.

And you love twisting simple statements to make them fit your warped views, don't you?

>>You're the one who is claiming to know for a fact that in the US population of close to 300 million in 2001 there would not have been sufficient numbers of people prepared to carry out the September 11 attacks.<<

Wrong again. I merely asked you how much do you think it would cost to buy the cooperation of one American citizen, to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood.

A question that you are avoiding like the plague.

Not surprisingly. Because it is a fairly fundamental requirement for your scenario, and you know that the answer would give the entire game away.

Right?

Pericles wrote, "Not that different, eh?"

I would suggest there's a lot of difference between "[me] readily admit[ting], ... that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" and the words of mine that you quoted.

Are you going to show where I admitted that I "haven't the faintest idea how it was all done", Pericles?

---

Pericles, what useful purpose is served by repeating your claims that I haven't made any worthwhile contributions to this discussion? ("You have simply waffled on about a New World Order, and the collapse of WTC7. ... (blah, blah, rant, rave, blah, rhubarb, blah) ")

Do you really think that if what you have said is true that others won't be able to work that out for themselves without you having to remind them of that at every possible opportunity?

---

Pericles wrote, "Wrong again. I merely asked you how much do you think it would cost to buy the cooperation of one American citizen, to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood."

I have no idea.

Why don't you tell us what you think the going rate is and then tell us what point you are trying to make?

If the point that you are trying to make is that the amount of money necessary to pay American professional killers to kill American citizens would make the whole cost of 9/11 prohibitively expensive even with $2.3 trillion having gone missing, then that seems to me to be logically the same as saying that you "know for a fact that in the US population of close to 300 million in 2001 there would not have been sufficient numbers of people prepared to carry out the September 11 attacks."

Of course, daggett. Your wish is my command.

>>Are you going to show where I admitted that I "haven't the faintest idea how it was all done", Pericles?<<

Here was my question to you.

"For example, have you any thoughts on how it all was put together? How many people were involved, how they sourced the necessary materials, how they managed to put all these explosives in place so expertly, how they managed to coordinate the explosions, and how they remain completely undetected?"

Which you still haven't answered, of course, because, as you so rightly responded:

"Yes, I have Pericles, but I am not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so."

If you do have any "thoughts on how it all was put together", you have kept them to yourself. Which would indicate that you haven't the faintest idea.

If you had, I'm sure we would have heard all about it by now.

Earlier in the same thread, you also told me...

"Anyhow, as I said, I don't have all the answers that are demanded of me."

As it turned out, you had none. Just more fantasy.

>>Do you really think that if what you have said is true that others won't be able to work that out for themselves without you having to remind them of that at every possible opportunity?<<

It's not others that need reminding, daggett. They long since lost interest. It's only you that needs help.

But at least we have managed to make progress on one front.

>>I have no idea.<<

You have no idea how much it would take to buy the cooperation of an American to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood, and remain silent about it, not boast about it, not write memoirs, not make deathbed confessions etc etc.

That pretty much settles that, then, as far as the balance of probabilities is concerned.

Of course, in a Die Hard screenplay, anything's possible.

Pericles wrote:

"It's not others that need reminding, daggett. They long since lost interest. It's only you that needs help."

So, why does Pericles continue to post to a forum that he insists no-one is reading?

---

Anyone looking for substantiation of Pericles' claim that I "readily admit[ted] ... that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" will look in vain in Pericles' latest long meandering 'contribution'.

I consider the precise amount necessary to pay the saboteurs is a detail that is not essential to this argument.

Note, also, that Pericles also declined to provide a figure of what he believed would be necessary to pay them for that work.

Obviously, given the vast amounts of money unaccounted for in the Pentagon's budget, the necessary funds could easily have been found.

Errr...

>>So, why does Pericles continue to post to a forum that he insists no-one is reading?<<

But you are reading it, daggett. Doesn't that make it all worth while?

>>I consider the precise amount necessary to pay the saboteurs is a detail that is not essential to this argument.<<

Nor do I. A ballpark estimate would do.

You see, the purpose is not to put a price on the exercise, as you seem to imagine.

>>If the point that you are trying to make is that the amount of money necessary to pay American professional killers to kill American citizens would make the whole cost of 9/11 prohibitively expensive...<<

The idea is to make you think about the detail. Where the devil lies.

I tried to make the point by asking you how much it would take to buy your commitment to blow up the Opera House, and all the people inside it. I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there, thus making it a little easier to imagine.

But you still can't get your head around it, can you?

If it takes you this long to think of a number, try to contemplate how long it would take your secret cabal of international wossnames to put the team together.

You have this notion that all you need in order to take over the world is a bunch of money. My point is that a bunch of money is still not going to make people sacrifice the rest of their lives to your "cause", after having murdered thousands of fellow-Americans in cold blood.

Especially as you haven't actually said what that "cause" might be.

Motive, remember?

You haven't even got close to means and opportunity, even with your Die Hard screenplays.

You're even further away from a motive

In fact you have zilch.

Not even a ghost of one.

Certainly not one that would stand the slightest chance of motivating hundreds of American citizens to become traitors to their country.

And kill their neighbour in the process.

Pericles expects me to believe that he continues to post here for my benefit alone.

I can certainly assure him that I am not posting here just for his benefit.

---

I note Pericles no longer insists that I admitted I don't have a clue how it was done.

The fact is I never made that admission and Pericles lied when he made that claim.

---

It's really beside the point that Pericles claims to be unable to believe that the necessary number of Americans willing and able to murder their fellow Americans could have been found to carry out 9/11.

That is the only way that the observations of the WTC 'collapses' of 9/11 can be explained. Certainly how WTC 7 'collapsed' to dust in 6.6 seconds in a manner exactly like a controlled demolition simply as a result of fire alone has not been explained anywhere and certainly not here by Pericles.

If Pericles wishes to either explain to us how WTC 7 did collapse as it did without explosives having been planted or if he can offer some other explanation of what happened which does not require explosives being planted by domestic saboteurs, then he is welcome to do so.

---

The remainder of Pericles' latest 'contribution' consists of no more than the restatement of lies that have been answered many times before and I don't intend to respond further.

I've heard that promise before, daggett.

>>I don't intend to respond further.<<

But you always seem to.

>>I can certainly assure him that I am not posting here just for his benefit.<<

Of course not. That would be a silly thing to do. You are posting here because you like to see yourself in print. It's a form of validation, that you are somehow... significant.

I quite understand.

>>I note Pericles no longer insists that I admitted I don't have a clue how it was done. The fact is I never made that admission and Pericles lied when he made that claim.<<

You said that with a straight face. Classic.

>>It's really beside the point that Pericles claims to be unable to believe that the necessary number of Americans willing and able to murder their fellow Americans could have been found to carry out 9/11.<<

I only asked for the price of one, daggett.

Just one.

Before you go jumping to conclusions about the "necessary number", just explain to me how just one person would handle it.

That's what I mean when I point out that the devil is in the detail.

It always is.

And while you insist on imagining there is a conspiracy of global elites, instead of building the picture from first principles, you will always fail to see the fundamental reasons why your theories are nonsense.

At some point you are going to have to face the reality, that you cannot find the slightest trace of a motive for your version of events.

The fact is, you start by imagining the existence of this all-powerful, secret cabal of international elites, with the ability to suck trillions of dollars at will from the US economy.

Everything you then imagine, flows from this.

I put it to you, that if you have managed to suck trillions of dollars out of the US economy without anyone noticing, you'd have very little motive to do anything as dangerous as murdering thousands of your fellow citizens.

You'd buy a small Carribean island, and retire in comfort.

Wouldn't you?

I note Pericles has, yet again, declined to offer any alternative explanation of how WTC 7 'collapsed' to dust in 6.6 seconds in a manner exactly like a controlled demolition simply as a result of fire alone.

And he has also failed to either restate his lie that I admitted I don't have a clue how it was done or withdraw it.

---

Just to make myself clear, Pericles:

When I see a post that warrants a response, or if someone else were to point out to me where I have not already answered any substantive contribution you have made, I will consider responding.

For the hundred and fiftieth time, daggett, there is absolutely no reason why I should do so.

>>I note Pericles has, yet again, declined to offer any alternative explanation of how WTC 7 'collapsed' to dust in 6.6 seconds in a manner exactly like a controlled demolition simply as a result of fire alone.<<

How can I best illustrate this very fundamental, but extremely simple point?

Imagine for a moment that you have hunted down a couple of sabre-toothed tigers and are sitting outside a cave waiting for your wife to make tigerburgers. You are in a contemplative mood.

"You know" says daggett, turning to his neighbour after another toke from the dried leaves he is burning, "you know how they tell us that when the sun goes down, it sits inside Hathor the cow, and is reborn each morning as her son?"

"Yes indeed" says Pericles - for it is he.

"Well..." daggett leans forward, ready to share his great secret for the first time. "I happen to know that the sun is actually carried across the sky in a chariot. What do you say to that then?"

"Errr. How do they get the sun inside the chariot, daggett? How do they make it stay there - won't it keep falling out? And who is driving the chariot anyway?

"That's easy" says daggett, triumphantly, "it's a secret cabal of international wossnames. They can do anything. Keeping a stupid old sun in a chariot to drive across the sky every day is nothing to them. Why they can...."

His eyes narrowed for a moment against the acrid smoke.

"You're not one of them, are you? Are they paying you to disagree with me"

His eyes rolled up into his forehead.

"So, smartypants, tell me why it ain't so. See, I told you, you can't tell me why it can't be true, so it must be true, nyah nyah upyabum."

I hope this little vignette describes our relative positions on the topic adequately for you, daggett.

I'll try to work up a scenario using Sesame Street characters, if that will help.

What kind of despicable creep would be capable of introducing this vicious libel into the discussion, Pericles?:

"I tried to make the point by asking you how much it would take to buy your commitment to blow up the Opera House, and all the people inside it. I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there, thus making it a little easier to imagine."

It adds no more to the discussion than if I were to ask Pericles how much he would have to be paid to rape his grandmother.

So, who put you up to planting this sick suggestion in people's minds, Pericles?

My, what a sensitive litle possum we are, aren't we daggett?

>>What kind of despicable creep would be capable of introducing this vicious libel into the discussion, Pericles?<<

And the "vicious libel" is the suggestion that your personal class war might extend to a disdain for opera-goers.

"I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there"

Quelle horreur!

Call out the guard, Cynthia, the barbarians are at the gate!

Never has a calumny been so heinously uttered.

Whatever next?

>>It adds no more to the discussion than if I were to ask Pericles how much he would have to be paid to rape his grandmother.<<

Ah, but it most certainly does, daggett.

I would have considerable difficulty, as you might expect, answering such a question as yours. It would involve such a broad and deep range of sins, I would definitely find it difficult to live with myself and my secret afterwards, whatever the amount of money we agreed.

Fortunately, raping my grandmother would not further the cause of destroying prominent New York buildings.

But you have to admit that on the other hand, violently ending the lives of fellow-citizens, in cold blood, and without discernible motive, is an essential component of your 9/11 scenario.

Therefore the question, what is the dollar value of such betrayal, is most definitely directly relevant.

Your sudden attack of the vapours at my passing reference to the class chip clearly visible on your shoulder, might have something to do with the fact that you have absolutely no answer to the question.

Business as usual, in fact.

I see Pericles remains unrepentant about his vicious libel against me:

"I tried to make the point by asking you how much it would take to buy your commitment to blow up the Opera House, and all the people inside it. I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there, thus making it a little easier to imagine."

Instead he compounds his vicious libel with the statement:

"[My] sudden attack of the vapours at my passing reference to the class chip clearly visible on [my] shoulder, ..."

So, will Pericles ever provide an example of anything I have posted that would cause any reasonable person to conclude that I would be capable of committing mass murder?

Pericles wrote, "It would involve such a broad and deep range of sins, I would definitely find it difficult to live with myself and my secret afterwards, whatever the amount of money we agreed."

Well, I would hope not.

But apparently he can live with stooping to accuse another of being capable of committing just such a crime without any basis for doing so.

---

Anyway to get around to the chore of dispensing with Pericles' latest excuse to avoid discussing the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement:

We know for a fact that American professional killers are capable of committing mass murder against people from other countries and we know for a fact that some US citizens are capable of murdering fellow Americans for money.

An example of the latter is the 'suicide' of Lieutenant Commander Bill Pitzer on 29 October 1966 just three days before he was to retire from the Navy. (Are you paying attention, PynchMe?) He had a film of President JFK's autopsy that would have blown out of the water the Warren Commission lie that JFK's fatal wound came from behind rather than from the front. That film was not found after Pitzer's death.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Years later, in 1995, a former Green Beret Daniel Marvin approached Pitzer's widow to inform her that he had been asked to kill Pitzer by the CIA. He had been told that Pitzer was a 'traitor' who was going to give information to the 'enemy'. Only after he saw Pitzer's name listed amongst the names of mysterious deaths linked to the JFK assassination, years later, at the end of a documentary did Marvin draw the connection.

Marvin would have killed Pitzer except that he thought it inappropriate for a Green Beret to kill a fellow American on US soil. So he declined, but clearly another did undertake the task. (Douglass, pp 315-321)

No doubt the same would have happened to many others linked to the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 who died mysteriously, but of course it would be difficult to prove.

Given the fact that

A. Professional American killers have killed fellow Americans;

B. Professional American killers have killed large numbers of people from other countries;

C. The necessary funds to pay for the work could easily have been found from amongst the vast sums of money unaccounted for in the Pentagon Budget,

... how can Pericles know for a fact that a sufficient number of professional killers, willing to murder fellow citizens could not have been found to perpetrate 9/11?

The fact is:

1. That the hypothesis that American saboteurs planted the explosives necessary to demolish the Word Trade Center Towers is the only explanation I know of which can account for what has bee observed;

2. Pericles has provided no other explanation which can account for those observations.

Unrepentant? An understatement, daggett. Something with which you appear entirely unfamiliar.

>>I see Pericles remains unrepentant about his vicious libel against me<<

Your capacity for exaggeration is all of a piece with your predilection for global conspiracies. But attempting to squeeze any form of libel - let alone the vicious sort - from my invitation to think more clearly, is beyond even your capabilities, I'm afraid.

>>But apparently he can live with stooping to accuse another of being capable of committing just such a crime without any basis for doing so.<<

Show me exactly where I accused you, and we'll have a look at who is "stooping" here.

As far as your latest attempt to provide even the vaguest of scenarios is concerned, it would help a great deal if you would provide checkable references once in a while.

I am aware of course, that each time you do so, it takes only a few minutes to debunk, which is why you are so reluctant. However, it is good practice to give us the benefit of your exhaustive - and probably exhausting - research. I know it's your hobby, daggett, but not everyone has the time and patience that you obviously do.

Be a good chap, and provide a link to your sources. Then I can give your theories the four or five minutes of attention they deserve.

I can see Pericles has failed, not for the first time, to substantiate an allegation against me.

Obviously, Pericles did not directly accuse me of being a person capable of committing mass murder, but the sick and unmistakable implication was clearly there.

---

Pericles, wrote, "... it takes only a few minutes to debunk, ..."

Rubbish!

Where have you debunked anything I have written?

Pericles complains, "... it would help a great deal if you would provide checkable references once in a while."

In fact I have provided many more checkable resources as well as much more substance to this discussion than you have.

In this case, I am afraid I can't do much to help when the reference I provided is contained in a printed book.

You could order yourself a copy of "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters". It cost me $52 to have it posted. I think it' around $46 if you collect it from your bookshop. Everyone has has assured me that it is well worth the money.

In any case, if anything I have written was not factual, I am sure your handlers would have told you by now.

Here's a great example of daggett-logic.

>>I can see Pericles has failed, not for the first time, to substantiate an allegation against me. Obviously, Pericles did not directly accuse me of being a person capable of committing mass murder, but the sick and unmistakable implication was clearly there.<<

So, I didn't accuse you of anything.

But I couldn't substantiate the allegation I didn't make.

Classic. A ready-made guide to the daggett thought processes. Such as they are.

I'd be fascinated to see what you consider to be a "sick and unmistakable implication" that you are a mass murderer. That would be equally illuminating, I suspect.

>>In this case, I am afraid I can't do much to help when the reference I provided is contained in a printed book.<<

That's handy.

You see daggett, the reason it is always a good idea to ask you to provide some context to your "references" is that they disappear like morning mist, when examined more closely.

You take a quote out of its original context, as you did - repeatedly - with Rumsfeld's speech.

You change the words around, just a little. As you did on the other thread with the Woodrow Wilson "quote".

Then you say "look, this proves it".

It is your trademark modus operandi. And I'm afraid it won't work any more.

>>In any case, if anything I have written was not factual, I am sure your handlers would have told you by now.<<

I am still looking for something in your posts that bears a remote resemblance to what is generally considered to be factual. So far, it is a mass of garbled innuendo, lacking any kind of basis in reality besides that which you yourself provide - the international cabal of elite wossnames that according to you, rule the world.

If I do find something of any substance, you may be sure I will pass it on to my "handlers".

Pericles pretends not to remember his own words which I have quoted back at him twice so far:

"I'd be fascinated to see what you consider to be a 'sick and unmistakable implication' that you are a mass murderer."

Here they are again, Pericles:

"I tried to make the point by asking you how much it would take to buy your commitment to blow up the Opera House, and all the people inside it. I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there, thus making it a little easier to imagine."

As I wrote, the implication was sick and unmistakable.

Pericles complains of my having cited a printed book.

He claims that I had tried to misrepresent Donald Rumsfeld by quoting him out of context and therefore, presumably, I cannot be trusted to cite any document that he can't check online.

Firstly, if I can be accused of quoting Rumsfeld out of context, then so can CBS news, whose story at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml I cited.

As I wrote, "It doesn't matter a jot whether the words are taken in or out of the context of Rumsfeld's encompassing spin, the fact remains, the money has gone missing." (Wednesday, 7 April 2010 7:27:48 AM)

Anyone who checks the genesis of the discussion for themselves will see that the dishonesty in that exchange began with Pericles and remained with Pericles all along.

The original dishonesty was Pericles insistence that there simply weren't funds available to fund 9/11.

Pericles wrote, "For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military, ..." (Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:39:50 AM)

I responded, "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." (Wednesday, 24 March 2010 4:03:02 PM)

Then Pericles wrote, "Why, of course. How convenient.

"But if they were destroyed, how do you know they ever existed? ... (blah, blah, rant, rave, rhubarb, blah)" (24 March 2010 5:41:28 PM)

After I pointed out that Rumsfeld, himself had admitted that $2.3 trillion had gone missing on 10 September 2001 (Thursday, 1 April 2010 7:13:37 AM), Pericles admitted that he knew of it all along:

"And this old chestnut. ..." (Thursday, 1 April 2010 8:44:02 AM)

So, anyone who checks this and any of Pericles's other utterances will be able to see that if anyone here can't be trusted to cite a work not available online it would have to be Pericles.

What a waste of a fine intelligence, daggett.

>>As I wrote, the implication was sick and unmistakable.<<

If you consider this simple mental exercise to be "sick", can you imagine the reaction of the hundreds of people that your cabal of international elite banksters must have approached with their particular proposition?

In fact, stretch your mind even further, and ask yourself how many people would have refused the offer of payment to murder their fellow citizens in cold blood.

What happened to them? The people who refused? Were they, in keeping with your Die Hard scenario, simply "blown away"?

Face it daggett. The more you look at the basic mechanics behind your wacky theory, the less plausible it becomes.

But of course, you don't actually have a theory, since you are "not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so", are you.

You are still confused about Rumsfeld, I notice.

I give you the courtesy of the full transcription of his speech, and you still insist that "Rumsfeld, himself had admitted that $2.3 trillion had gone missing on 10 September 2001".

Which, of course, he did not. You prefer to read other people's reports, instead of the original, because they share your craving for drama over reality.

>>if I can be accused of quoting Rumsfeld out of context, then so can CBS news<<

And if you don't mind, I'll repeat an earlier question, prompted by this little gem of yours:

>>"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."<<

How do you know the records existed?

I look forward, as always, to your verbal contortions.

There are obviously sick and twisted people in the world.

The tens of millions killed in wars caused by the US since the end of the Second World War is surely evidence.

However to imply that another person is, himself, capable of the crime of mass murder precisely because he is outspoken against those crimes of mass murder committed by the US and allied governments, as Pericles has done, would have to be one of the most despicable libels imaginable.

---

Obviously the false flag terrorist attack of September 11 2001 goes outside of our own direct experience up until then. For the first time (if we exclude the Oklahoma City bombing) we have the combination of large numbers of people having been killed apparently by paid professional US killers and those people who were killed being American citizens rather than people of another country.

That is why, even supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement acknowledge that they had a great deal of difficulty facing up to that awful implication.

Pericles wrote:

"... can you imagine the reaction of the hundreds of people ... ? ..."

Of course, this always poses difficulties for people intending to orchestrate a monstrous crime, but this doesn't mean that more subtle means to recruit people from amongst a pool of people, judged to be predisposed to be capable of committing that crime cannot be found and it doesn't mean that means cannot be found to silence unwilling people with knowledge of the conspiracy: bribes, intimidation, or killing them outright.

"JFK and the Unspeakable" by James Douglass has abundant documented examples of how this was done to people with knowledge of facts about the murder of JFK that were contrary to the official lie of the Warren Commission.

As I wrote, the explanation that domestic US professional killers and saboteurs carried out 9/11 is the only explanation that accounts for the observed facts and, no-one, least of all, Pericles, has provided a plausible alternative explanation.

That is why it should be properly investigated so that either that explanation is proven or disproven.

Pericles attempts to avoid discussing the missing $2.3trillion in the Pentagon budget by focussing on a subsidiary aspect:

"How do you know the records [of the missing $2.3 trillion] existed [in the part of the Pentagon hit by Flight 77]?"

I read somewhere that that the unaccounted trillions were being investigated by accountants in the part of the Pentagon that was struck by Flight 77.

At the moment I choose not to track down that particular source at least until such time as you show yourself willing to acknowledge the abundant other documentary evidence I have provided.

If, in the meantime, you wish to allege that I made it up, I am happy to let others be the judge of my honesty.

The fact remains that there were vast amounts of funds unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget that could easily have been diverted to pay for 9/11.

Until 9/11 is properly investigated there is no way we can know that that did not happen.

I'm almost wishing I had done so, daggett.

>>However to imply that another person is, himself, capable of the crime of mass murder precisely because he is outspoken against those crimes of mass murder committed by the US and allied governments, as Pericles has done, would have to be one of the most despicable libels imaginable.<<

However much you chunter on about this "despicable libel", it does not change the fact that I merely invited you to consider the mindset of others.

The fact that you are unable to do so pretty much renders you incapable of assessing reality behind your scenarios for 9/11. The more you witter on about it, the more obvious that becomes.

>>even supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement acknowledge that they had a great deal of difficulty facing up to that awful implication.<<

If you say so. Doesn't seem to be given a great deal of emphasis on their web sites, so I guess they managed to get over it.

>>As I wrote, the explanation that domestic US professional killers and saboteurs carried out 9/11 is the only explanation that accounts for the observed facts and, no-one, least of all, Pericles, has provided a plausible alternative explanation.<<

Again that warped perspective, daggett.

Your "explanation" is not plausible, as I have tried to point out to you. You and your website friends have yet to come up with a scenario that fits all the facts. You pick around the edges with some dubious assumptions, but never address the means, motive or the opportunity.

Until you do so, you will continue to substitute imagination for common sense.

>>Pericles attempts to avoid discussing the missing $2.3trillion in the Pentagon budget by focussing on a subsidiary aspect:<<

I referred you to the original script. Hardly a "subsidiary aspect". It was you who introduced the Flight 77 red herring, remember?

>>I read somewhere that that the unaccounted trillions were being investigated by accountants in the part of the Pentagon that was struck by Flight 77.<<

I'm sure you did, daggett.

Pity you didn't cut'n'paste it, like you usually do.

Note how Pericles repeatedly goaded me into responding to his sick 'mental exercise':

"What would be your price?

"How much would the shadowy representatives of the New World Order have to pay you to, say, blow up the Opera House and everyone in it?

"Just a ballpark amount will do. ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=24)

"I tried to make the point by asking you how much it would take to buy your commitment to blow up the Opera House, and all the people inside it. I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there, thus making it a little easier to imagine." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=27)

"I only asked for the price of one, daggett.

"Just one. ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=27)

"Therefore the question, what is the dollar value of such betrayal, is most definitely directly relevant.

"Your sudden attack of the vapours at my passing reference to the class chip clearly visible on your shoulder, might have something to do with the fact that you have absolutely no answer to the question." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=28)

Yet, when I take the effort respond to his mental 'exercise' (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=28 - 2 posts dated 11 March, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=29) my arguments are neither acknowledged nor responded to. His first excuse is to complain that he can't check my sources because it is in in a printed book. His second is simply:

"Again that warped perspective, daggett.

"Your 'explanation' is not plausible, as I have tried to point out to you." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=29)

So, when I refuse to respond to his sick 'mental exercise', I am accused of "have[ing] absolutely no answer to the question" and when I do, my responses are ignored.

So, Pericles now 'almost' wishes he had uttered his libel explicitly instead of shrouding it beneath his disingenuous 'mental exercise'.

I would suggest that this makes it abundantly clear that my impression was correct.

Pericles attempts to ridicule my assurances that I did indeed read that the crash of Flight 77 destroyed records of an investigation into the missing trillions in the Pentagon Budget:

"I'm sure you did."

... as if anyone should be in the least concerned by his feigned disbelief.

Of course the person who has been shown up to be the liar is Pericles, himself, who knowing full well that $2.3 trillion had gone missing (or, to use Rumsfeld's spin "we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions") denied my claim that hundreds of billions of Pentagon had gone missing from the Pentagon budget:

"For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21)

It's ok, daggett, I understand

>>Note how Pericles repeatedly goaded me into responding to his sick 'mental exercise': "What would be your price?<<

You obviously don't believe this is a reasonable question to ask. Which is why you haven't answered it.

The responses you did offer were exclusively about the mysterious "other people" that you believe regularly take the CIA shilling to do their dirty work for them.

I happen to believe that the scenario you present - that there are hundreds of Americans willing and capable of performing the tasks that you, albeit very vaguely, outline for them - requires too much faith in the existence of your secret cabal with limitless cash, and too little in the basic traits of human nature.

The reason I asked you in the first place, was to encourage you to treat this as a real-life happening, rather than leave it in the realms of a Die Hard screenplay.

How many times did you think to yourself during that movie, "that wouldn't happen in real life"? Well, this is the same exercise: tell me how much it would cost to buy these people, in real life.

Once we have established how much it would take, we could move on to the recruiting process itself.

Obviously they wouldn't advertise in the press, or put the job description up on Seek. So how did they do it? And what happened to those people who said "I don't care if daggett would do it for $x million. There's no way I'm killing fellow-Americans"?

Who are they?

Where are they?

Silence doesn't invariably indicate conspiracy. It might also indicate absence. A lack. A non-existence. Especially when there is no incentive to keep silent.

If it is any consolation to you, I do genuinely believe that you "read that the crash of Flight 77 destroyed records of an investigation into the missing trillions in the Pentagon Budget"

My comment was the blog-equivalent of a raised, incredulous eyebrow. All you now need to do now is to remember where you read it, and we can examine the theory together.

Pericles wrote, "I referred you to the original script. Hardly a 'subsidiary aspect'. It was you who introduced the Flight 77 red herring, remember?"

It remains 'subsidiary' because Rumsfeld himself admitted on 10 September 2001 that $2.3 trillion had gone missing.

And you remain a liar, because even though you already knew that fact you maintained that it was a myth that billions of dollars had gone missing.

You just love calling me a liar, don't you daggett.

I'm beginning to think it has become a fixation with you.

>>Rumsfeld himself admitted on 10 September 2001 that $2.3 trillion had gone missing. And you remain a liar, because even though you already knew that fact you maintained that it was a myth that billions of dollars had gone missing.<<

You know perfectly well what Rumsfeld actually said, daggett. And you really are intelligent enough to know the difference between "$2.3 trillion had gone missing", as you put it, and "we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions", as Rumsfeld stated.

I'm actually quite puzzled why you insist that they are the same, given that a factual record exists of the entire speech.

Perhaps it is because without the sequestering of tons of greenbacks by your mysterious band of elite banksters, the entire construction you have built around 9/11 collapses like... well, like WTC7, I guess.

I'd just like to remind you while you are here, that you haven't yet risen to the challenge of identifying the price that each of your alleged participants would demand, for their part in the cold-blooded murder of their fellow-Americans. Or what might have happened to those who declined the - undoubtedly generous - offer.

Pericles, believe it or not, I would prefer not to have to spend hours of my days dealing with habitual liars in the first place.

You hid behind your lie that there were no missing billions with which the demolitions of the WTC towers could have been funded to avoid confronting the clear evidence from http://ae911truth.org that they were demolished with explosives.

Yet, all along, as you admitted, you knew perfectly well that the Pentagon was, in terms of Rumsfeld's spin, unable to keep track of $2.3 trillion.

Well, as far as I am concerned, until Rumsfeld and the Pentagon find themselves again able to keep track of all or any of that $2.3 trillion, that money has gone missing.

As I showed US Marine Corps whistleblowers, John Minnery was unable to find $300 million and his superiors simply wrote that money off.

So, there is $300 million for a start that has definitely and permanently gone missing by anyone's definition.

How much of the rest of the $2.3 trillion can Pericles tell us has:

A. been similarly written off;

B. still "cannot [be] track[ed]" in Rumsfeld's terms;

C. been accounted for?

By my definition, all money remains missing until such time as it ends up in category C and I expect any reasonable person would agree with that definition.

Pericles (once again) demands that I "[rise] to the challenge of identifying the price that each of your alleged participants would demand, for their part in the cold-blooded murder of their fellow-Americans."

Note that Pericles has ignored my responses of 11 April 2010 10:14:50 PM and 11 April 2010 10:16:27 PM at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=28 to that question.

Why should I waste my time responding to a proven habitual liar who refuses to acknowledge the evidence and arguments I put?

I can well understand that, daggett.

>>Pericles, believe it or not, I would prefer not to have to spend hours of my days dealing with habitual liars in the first place.<<

But if you are referring to me - which from the context of this and a jillion other posts, you seem to be - I would gently point out that you have not yet identified a single place where I have lied to you.

>>You hid behind your lie that there were no missing billions with which the demolitions of the WTC towers could have been funded<<

That is a "conclusion made from available evidence", daggett.

Hardly a lie.

For my part. I wouldn't stoop to brand as a lie every one of your "conclusions made from available evidence", even though the vast majority of them are based on considerably more dubious premises than those I present.

But it's actually ok with me that you insist with every post that I am a liar. It demonstrates far better than I ever could that your arguments rely upon shouting and stamping your foot, rather than logic and consistency.

>>Well, as far as I am concerned, until Rumsfeld and the Pentagon find themselves again able to keep track of all or any of that $2.3 trillion, that money has gone missing.<<

We have been over this a number of times.

The key phrase here is "as far as I am concerned".

That means that you give yourself leave to apply any interpretation you like on the facts. And at the same time, presumably, permit yourself to call anyone who disagrees with you, a liar.

As far as I am concerned, daggett, you are determined to twist a perfectly reasonable and administratively responsible statement into something it is not.

And at the same time, call Rumsfeld's honest assessment of the state of the IT systems, "spin".

Hilarious.

And please, if it makes you feel any better, you may start every one of your posts to me "Pericles, you're lying again", and I won't feel in the least bit offended.

Now that's very odd, daggett.

>>Pericles (once again) demands that I "[rise] to the challenge of identifying the price that each of your alleged participants would demand, for their part in the cold-blooded murder of their fellow-Americans." Note that Pericles has ignored my responses of 11 April 2010 10:14:50 PM and 11 April 2010 10:16:27 PM at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=28 to that question. Why should I waste my time responding to a proven habitual liar who refuses to acknowledge the evidence and arguments I put?<<

D'you know, I looked really, really carefully, and I couldn't find a single word that you offered in response to the question I posed.

Is that because i) there isn't one, or ii) I did not look hard enough?

Do us all a favour, daggett, and place your response next to the question, so that we can all see how completely and directly you answered it.

"how much do you think it would cost to buy the cooperation of one American citizen, to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood."

This would be a very appropriate place to cut'n'paste a reply, by the way. Since you insist that you have already answered the question, that shouldn't be too arduous.

In truth, there was more to my previous reply.

However, mindful of how Pericles habitually and dishonestly ignores my arguments and evidence including the response I made above to his same question, I did not include it.

Here it is:

What would be the point of providing my own estimate of the figure that Pericles demands? I am not an expert in what is the going rate for saboteurs and professional killers in the US at the time.

Nevertheless, as I showed cleared that there are people who are willing to kill large numbers of foreign citizens for money and there are people who are prepared to kill fellow US citizens for money.

Of course, it has yet to be conclusively proven that US citizens murdered almost 3,000 fellow citizens on 11 September 2001.

However, as neither Pericles nor anyone else as far as I am aware have provided any other plausible explanation as to how the three WTC towers 'collapsed', that hypothesis should be investigated.

Yet it has not been investigated.

---

Note also how Pericles has not responded to my argument over Rumsfeld's terminology.

If the money had not gone missing, then I would have thought that they would have found some way to again account for those transactions after all this time.

So, how much of the $2.3 trillion is the Pentagon still not able to keep track of, Pericles?

How much longer need that situation persist before Pericles finally concedes that it has gone missing after all?

---

Of course the whole purpose of Pericles' pedantry is to throw up a smokescreen to conceal is blatant dishonesty.

His dishonesty was his insistence contrary to what he, himself, knew to be the case, that there were ample missing funds available that could easily have been diverted to pay for the demolition of the towers and other aspects of the the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack.

So in fact your answer was "I refuse to give an answer", daggett.

Q: how much do you think it would cost to buy the cooperation of one American citizen, to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood.

A: What would be the point of providing my own estimate of the figure that Pericles demands?

Now it's your turn. Fair's fair.

Q: how much of the $2.3 trillion is the Pentagon still not able to keep track of, Pericles?

A: "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."

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

Of course, however much remains unaccounted for, and/or written off, it doesn't mean that a single penny went to the bank accounts of your secret international band of elites, or to funding a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre.

Or anywhere at all, for that matter.

>>How much longer need that situation persist before Pericles finally concedes that it has gone missing after all?<<

For all we know, there may be a stack of invoices somewhere that will appear in 2090, or in Cleveland Ohio, or in another space/time dimension - or all three - that will eventually balance the books.

With the level of administrative competence shown in many military supply units, I could well have shuffled off this mortal coil long before the story is completed.

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg37469.html

http://www.philipjohnston.com/news/te270200.htm

When you have to make a choice between conspiracy and incompetence, pick incompetence.

Every time.

Pericles wrote, "So in fact your answer was 'I refuse to give an answer', daggett."

As I explained several times, it's a stupid question.

Why don't you answer your own question, then, Pericles?

---

Pericles again attempts to change the subject in a desperate attempt to avoid having to admit his dishonesty:

"Of course, however much remains unaccounted for, and/or written off, it doesn't mean that a single penny went to the bank accounts of your secret international band of elites, or to funding a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre."

No. Pericles, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

But neither does it mean that those funds could not have been used to fund 9/11, contrary to your dishonest insistence that there is no way that the money could have been found.

The point also remains that if you already knew that $2.3 trillion remained unaccounted for (as you now put it) then you lied when you insisted that it was a myth that hundreds of billions of dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget.

If eventually invoices which fully account for all that $2.3 trillion can be found, then obviously, at that point, the funds can be considered fully accounted for, but Pericles has provided no reason, other than wishful thinking, to assume that that will ever happen.

No doubt about it, daggett, you are a constant - and apparently, never-ending - source of fun and amusement.

>>Pericles wrote, "So in fact your answer was 'I refuse to give an answer', daggett." As I explained several times, it's a stupid question.<<

I know it is a very difficult question. But it isn't by any means a stupid one, as you suggest.

The idea is to help you bring your thinking processes into line with real world possibilities. Your general idea of what happened on 9/11 requires that a substantial number of people jettison any idea of a future, and sell themselves into a plot that murders, in cold blood, thousands of their fellow-Americans.

Since this was a sort of cornerstone to your concept, I thought I'd direct your attention to the practical detail for a moment. If you choose not to answer it - fine. But it remains relevant, like it or not.

And however much you try, you won't get this across the line, I'm afraid.

>>The point also remains that if you already knew that $2.3 trillion remained unaccounted for (as you now put it) then you lied when you insisted that it was a myth that hundreds of billions of dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget.<<

I do indeed insist that there is not a shred of evidence that any money had been redirected into the bank accounts of a cabal of international banksters, or in fact, into your account, daggett.

There's a thought.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence that the money, if it existed, was sent to you, rather than to your secret society of conspirators.

Is that not the case?

So daggett, where did you hide it?

C'mon, 'fess up. You've had it all along, haven't you? And you're inventing all this stuff to distract attention from yourself.

Go on, prove me wrong.

Note, how, once again, Pericles has refused to either acknowledge his deliberate lie or apologise for it:

"I do indeed insist that there is not a shred of evidence that any money had been redirected into the bank accounts of a cabal of international banksters, or in fact, into your account, daggett."

And this is what the above is supposedly in response to:

"The point also remains that if you already knew that $2.3 trillion remained unaccounted for (as you now put it) then you lied when you insisted that it was a myth that hundreds of billions of dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget."

---

Pericles wrote, "The idea is to help you bring your thinking processes into line with real world possibilities. ..."

If Pericles was not the liar that he has shown himself to be, he would acknowledge that I have obviously put a great deal of thought into this very question instead of continuing to lecture me on this forum as if I was a child.

You are going to have to give some thought to your style guide, daggett. Your opening lines are becoming remarkably predictable.

>>Note, how, once again, Pericles has refused to either acknowledge his deliberate lie or apologise for it<<

You state that my "lie" is to insist "that it was a myth that hundreds of billions of dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget."

If you actually read what I wrote, daggett, instead of what you think I wrote, I merely pointed out that there is a huge difference between something being unaccounted for, and "missing", in the sense that you want the word to mean.

You want it to mean "misappropriated" or "stolen" or "diverted". Furthermore, you want us to believe that it found its way into the bank accounts of organizations who use it for terrorist operations against their own people.

And in a Die Hard script, of course it could work. Unfortunately, in the real world, the suspension of disbelief is simply too great for your theory even to reach first base.

I'll treasure this little dummy-spit, by the way.

>>If Pericles was not the liar that he has shown himself to be, he would acknowledge that I have obviously put a great deal of thought into this very question instead of continuing to lecture me on this forum as if I was a child.<<

That is most unfair. I most certainly acknowledge the great deal of thought you have put into this question, as well as the entire 9/11 saga.

What you haven't done, on the specific question of "follow the money", is to provide even the remotest shred of a notion of how it all happened or was put together. Right down to the mundane detail of who was recruited to do the deed, and how much they would need to be paid.

Nothing.

Bupkis.

You might like to give this some thought, too, in your quieter moments.

The consistent thread through your arguments is that enough money can make anything happen. Invisibly, and unnoticed.

It doesn't. It always leaves clues.

Even in the movies.

Once again, this is where Pericles lied to this forum:

"For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military." (Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:39:50 AM http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21)

And this is where he admitted that he knew all along that Rumsfeld, himself, admitted on 10 September 2001 that the Pentagon was unable to keep track of $23.3 trillion:

"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.<<" (Thursday, 1 April 2010 8:44:02 AM http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21)

Pericles waffling on (yet again) about whether or not it can be proven, that any, some or all of the $2.3 trillion in transactions, that the Pentagon could not "track" on 10 September 2001, were used to fund 9/11, entirely misses the point.

It's hard enough having to deal with incessant ad hominem attacks and the rest of the debaters' tricks in the repertoires of the likes of Pericles, but I see no reason why anyone should be expected to treat seriously any words posted here by such a proven habitual liar.

---

And it's also an implicit lie that I have not already answered over and over and over again the remaining 'arguments' in Pericles' most recent posts.

You have many endearing habits, daggett, but one of the most delightful is your ability to call someone "a proven habitual liar", while in the very same sentence accuse them of "incessant ad hominem attacks"

Truly epic.

Another of your chuckleworthy traits is to contradict yourself, so perfectly, while making the "habitual liar" accusation.

Take this one, for example.

>>Once again, this is where Pericles lied to this forum: "For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military."<<

This is, as you would be perfectly aware, absolutely consistent with all my previous statements on the possibility of Rumsfeld's funds being diverted to your 9/11 theory.

The "means", in case you have forgotten, refers to the absence of "means, motive and opportunity". And as I said, there is no evidence whatsoever of dollar one, let alone billions, being sequestered for the use of terrorists. That's what "set aside" means.

Hence, they are "mythical". They exist only in your imagination. Where all myths live.

>>this is where he admitted that he knew all along that Rumsfeld, himself, admitted on 10 September 2001 that the Pentagon was unable to keep track of $23.3 trillion<<

Ah, daggett. It was I who pointed out to you that Rumsfeld complained that the transactions could not be tracked. It was you who said that the money was missing. I wish you could remember that.

And surely...

>>whether or not it can be proven, that any, some or all of the $2.3 trillion in transactions, that the Pentagon could not "track" on 10 September 2001, were used to fund 9/11, entirely misses the point.<<

...the fact that a) it can't be shown to be missing at all, and b) it can't be shown that any money ended up with the secret cabal of international banksters is, precisely, the point?

>>And it's also an implicit lie that I have not already answered over and over and over again the remaining 'arguments' in Pericles' most recent posts.<<

Sadly not, daggett.

It isn't an "implicit lie".

It is an explicit truth.

Pericles,

I have no interest in maintaining this discussion with you.

You can go on forever attempting to deny your attempt to deceive this forum, but I believe that any reasonable person will see still be able to see your deception for what it is.

I sincerely hope this is not the case, daggett.

>>Pericles, I have no interest in maintaining this discussion with you.<<

It would be a great shame.

I was really looking forward to finding out where you were going to take our discussion next.

But if it has to be, it has to be.

Ave atque vale.

Pericels wrote, "I was really looking forward to finding out where you were going to take our discussion next."

... as if unaware that he was leading this discussion around in circles.

Whoops!

I mis-spelt 'Pericles' as 'Pericels'

Perhaps I need to adopt a more phonetic spelling such as, perhaps, 'Perikleez' in order to be better able to avoid making the same mistake in future.

As Pericles is not one known not to be shy about showing off his foreign language skills, this would seem to be a very good first assignment for him, when he begins his new job within the New World Order's Ministry of Truth (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=37)

GERMAN TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN CALL ON ANGELA MERKEL TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY'RE AT WAR

German soldiers are wearing their hearts on their sleeves - in the form of a badge that protests their country's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

Some troops have taken to wearing the cloth accessory that states - ironically - 'I fight for Merkel' in a bid to persuade the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to explain exactly what they are fighting and dying for.

Four more troops were killed, and five badly injured, in Afghanistan last week.

...

The Financial Times Deutschland said: 'With every dead German soldier in Afghanistan, the calls for an immediate withdrawal grow louder. This reflex shows that the German public is still not clear about the character of the mission.

'The politicians are largely to blame. Since the beginning of the mission eight years ago they suppressed a realistic description of the situation... Deaths, injuries, battles and heavy weaponry -- none of these suit the picture that was painted back then.'

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung said: 'Why are German soldiers in Afghanistan at all? As the chancellor and her government are still sticking to the military mission there it is their duty to explain it. But she has failed to do so.

'This can be explained by her basic attitude - it is only worth talking about problems when they become virulent.

'In the case of Afghanistan this is particularly catastrophic. Because the government has failed to make its case in what is the biggest foreign policy and security policy challenge in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1267802/German-troops-Afghanistan-Angela-Merkel-explain-theyre-war.html