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.