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?