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.