It seems, daggett, that you refuse to understand even the simplest explanation, if it disagrees with your preconceptions.

>>Pericles' 'explanation' of "the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions" is playing games with words.<<

Hardly. It is a clear and complete argument that "unreconciled" does not mean "stolen".

However, more importantly, it is a clear and complete argument that "lost track of" does not indicate "embezzled", and "embezzled" does not mean "funnelled into secret bank accounts", nor does "funnelled into secret bank accounts" mean those accounts are held by a "cabal of elite banksters"

So the evidence that they might actually have been used for the purposes you describe, is infinitesimally small.

>>then obtaining the funds to stage all 9/11 including the demolitions of the three WTC towers would have presented no insurmountable difficulty to the 9/11 conspirators.<<

But even were you to make an even vaguely plausible case for this, which you are unable to do, the fact remains that you still do not have the slightest clue as to means, motive or opportunity.

You are tilting at windmills.

Note how Pericles is no longer insisting that "$2.3 billion in transactions disappearing" is somehow different from "not being able to keep track of" $2.3 trillion in transactions.

Nevertheless, in his determination to avoid having to acknowledge his dishonesty, Pericles continues to play games with the meaning of words:

"Hardly. It is a clear and complete argument that 'unreconciled' does not mean 'stolen'.

"However, more importantly, it is a clear and complete argument that "lost track of" does not indicate ... (blah, blah, rant, rhubarb, rant, blah, blah)"

No doubt the directors of Enron would have used similar arguments to dissuade auditors from looking too closely at their financial transactions.

Pericles wrote, "So the evidence that they might actually have been used for the purposes you describe, is infinitesimally small."

Pericles, you have not proven that sufficient funds could not easily have been found to pay for the staging of 9/11 from amongst the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld admitted he could not keep track of.

Your whole justification for refusing to provide an explanation for how WTC 7 'collapsed' was your claim that funds to have caused the 'collapse' of WTC 7 by means other than fire, namely the planting of demolition charges, could not have possibly been found.

However, I have shown that ample funds were available.

Pericles wrote, "the fact remains that you still do not have the slightest clue as to means, motive or opportunity."

The means are the huge amount of funds unaccounted for, as described, above as well as a huge amount of human and material resources.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

If Pericles has, after all this time, finally been able to bring himself to concede (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=29) that the German Government of 1933 had a motive to commit an act of terrorism then blame it on its political opponents in order to justify the removal of their civil, political and human rights, then he should be able to understand that US Government also had a motive in 2001 to commit an act of terrorism against its own citizens also in order to be able to blame it on others and use that as an excuse to strip away constitutional rights of its citizens and then launch illegal wars against Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in order to gain control of natural resources.

The opportunity was the control of the buildings in which much of the crime was perpetrated, by people working in collusion with the cabal who perpetrated that crime and the ability of that cabal to direct investigations away from uncovering evidence of those people's complicity in that crime, as the 9/11 Commission and NIST did.

This has been abundantly explained to Pericles over and over again.

So, what then is his excuse for continuing to refuse to offer an explanation as to how WTC 7 could have collapsed to dust in 6.6 seconds exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition as a result of fire alone?

You do ramble on, daggett.

We must have covered the same ground more than a dozen times by now, and still you talk ten times as much as you listen.

Or write ten times as much as you read. Same difference. It means that you i) ignore anything you disagree with and ii) repeat the same old stuff over and over, as if repetition will somehow make it true.

Sad, really.

>>Note how Pericles is no longer insisting that "$2.3 billion in transactions disappearing" is somehow different from "not being able to keep track of" $2.3 trillion in transactions.<<

How on earth did you read that into my post? That's simply delusional.

>>Pericles, you have not proven that sufficient funds could not easily have been found to pay for the staging of 9/11 from amongst the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld admitted he could not keep track of.<<

Again, for the hundredth time. You cannot prove a negative. You can only work on the balance of probabilities, which in this case are stacked up high against the remotest possibility that funds were channeled into your secret society.

>>However, I have shown that ample funds were available.<<

You have done no such thing. You merely assume, as you always do, that because your imaginary secret cabal of elites can do anything, getting their hands on other people's billions without being noticed is just another daily task for them.

It isn't. Pure fantasy.

>>...US Government also had a motive in 2001 to commit an act of terrorism against its own citizens also in order to be able to blame it on others and use that as an excuse to strip away constitutional rights of its citizens<<

What exactly was that motive, daggett? Recruiting Americans to murder their fellow-citizens in cold blood is a non-trivial task. They would need a little more than "help us steal some oil", I would suggest.

>>The opportunity was the control of the buildings in which much of the crime was perpetrated<<

As usual, you provide no evidence for this. Just another quick trip into Die Hard territory.

Pericles wrote, "How on earth did you read that into my post? That's simply delusional."

It's not delusional. It's right there in your previous post (Sunday, 4 April 2010 7:19:19 PM) immediately before my last double post.

I wrote, "Pericles' 'explanation' of "the difference between $2.3 billion in transactions disappearing and not being able to keep track of those transactions" is playing games with words."

Then Pericles responded, "Hardly. It is a clear and complete argument that 'unreconciled' does not mean 'stolen."

This is what I call a sleight of hand.

I may or may not believe that the missing funds were stolen, however in that post was to show that your claim that the meaning of the words:

"not being able to keep track of $2.3 trillion in transactions"

... is no different from the meaning of the words:

"$2.3 billion in transactions are missing"

What Rumsfeld was doing in that Press conference of 10 September 2001 was what all of us should have been well familiar with long ago, that is, 'spinning' the appalling reality of the state of Pentagon finances in which over $8,000 of funds for every man, woman and child in the US had not been accounted for by the Pentagon, into terms he judged would be more palatable to public opinion.

Nowhere else in Pericles' post did he either:

1. maintain that the underlying meaning of the two phrases was different; or

2. admit he was wrong.

Instead he simply changed the subject.

---

The rest of Pericles' post contains only arguments I have already answered many times before, so I won't be responding further.

Anyone who still thinks that they can learn anything whatsoever about 9/11 by reading anything that Pericles has to say about it is welcome to read it.

This is "Through the Looking Glass" material, daggett.

Your explanation of the difference between funds being missing, and accounts unable to be reconciled, deserves special mention under the heading "wtf?"

After all your froth and bubble, the fact remains that you haven't a skerrick of evidence that a) any funds were misappropriated or b) even if they were, that they somehow ended up in the bank account of the secret cabal of elites.

Nor yet that this mysterious team of slick banksters then used it to bribe a bunch of folk to murder innocent fellow-Americans, in cold blood.

Let alone why they would ever contemplate doing such a thing.

While on the topic, daggett, do tell.

What would be your price?

How much would the shadowy representatives of the New World Order have to pay you to, say, blow up the Opera House and everyone in it?

Just a ballpark amount will do. Bearing in mind that it will have to buy your silence for as long as you live. And remembering that you could write some memoirs to be opened after you're gone...

Go on, tell us. How much?

I'd be tempted to describe the whole concept as a house of cards. But that would imply that you were able to get at least one card to stand on top of another.

Oh, I just noticed.

>>The rest of Pericles' post contains only arguments I have already answered many times before, so I won't be responding further.<<

Ah, shame. Just when it was getting interesting.

>>Anyone who still thinks that they can learn anything whatsoever about 9/11 by reading anything that Pericles has to say about it is welcome to read it.<<

I dunno. It seemed as if we were finally getting somewhere, too.