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.