(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?