You just love berating others for their "blatant dishonesty", don't you daggett?

>>Yet another example of blatant dishonesty on Pericles's part<<

But I must admit to a sense of bewilderment over your latest accusation.

>>I thought 'could' (my words) and 'would' (your words) had two different meanings<<

Well yes, actually they do.

But my point was that if your money could have, then Madoff's would have, too. After all, in both cases the money went "missing" - lost, stolen, strayed, unaccounted for, untraceable, untracked, whatever.

You may choose to disagree with the logic, but it is hardly "dishonest" in most people's definition of the term.

If only everyone was pathologically incapable of dishonesty, like you.

Talking of which, you still have not provided any background to your supposition that there is...

>>...the well understood reality that there are thousands of professional killers in the US perfectly capable of murdering fellow US citizens if they were paid to do so.<<

Well understood, by whom? Do you have any references that we can check, perhaps? Or maybe they are in the Yellow Pages, under "International Assassins"...

>>Whilst Pericles appears touchingly confident that professional killers in the US would never stoop to murdering fellow US citizens...<<

I'm just curious, daggett. You seem to know so much about these so-called "professional killers", who apparently live and work in the US, and are happy to murder their fellow citizens in cold blood, I was wondering if you have their tariff handy.

The reason for asking, just in case you were wondering, is that these pieces of information are the building blocks that could - or even would - provide your fantasy with a modicum of credibility.

You readily admit, when pressed, that you haven't the faintest idea how it was all done ("it's not up to me to solve the mystery", I believe you once confessed), yet you continue to insist that the secret cabal of elites coordinated it all.

If you had the faintest clue what "it all" consisted of, you might have a more interesting case to make.

Pericles wrote (on 1 Apr 2010) "There are no 'paid full-time disinformation peddlers', except in your imagination."

Of course, a paid full-time liar would say that, wouldn't he.?

A practised paid liar will also endlessly repeat the same lie no matter how many times it has been rebutted:

"You readily admit, when pressed, that you haven't the faintest idea how it was all done ('it's not up to me to solve the mystery', I believe you once confessed), ..."

Of course I never "readily admit[ted] that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" and Pericles knows full well he won't be able to show that I did.

What I did do at one point was to object (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=4) to Pericles' own resort to Rule 14 of "25 rules of Disinformation":

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, ... (see http://911blogger.com/node/20684)

As Pericles well knows I have provided a lot more detail about how I believe 9/11 was perpetrated than he has provided any detail about how he claims to believe it happened.

---

Pericles wrote, "You seem to know so much about these so-called 'professional killers', ..."

Why do I "seem to know so much", Pericles?

You're the one who is claiming to know for a fact that in the US population of close to 300 million in 2001 there would not have been sufficient numbers of people prepared to carry out the September 11 attacks.

All I wrote was "I won't be satisfied until the matter is properly investigated and all outstanding questions related to the 'collapses' of the WTC towers as well as 9/11, in general, have been answered."

Oh really, daggett?

>>Of course I never "readily admit[ted] that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" and Pericles knows full well he won't be able to show that I did.<<

I remembered it like this:

"'it's not up to me to solve the mystery', I believe you once confessed"

And these were your exact words:

"I am not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so."

Not that different, eh?

Do you remember now, or shall I get the full post for you?

>>As Pericles well knows I have provided a lot more detail about how I believe 9/11 was perpetrated than he has provided any detail about how he claims to believe it happened.<<

That's rot. You have simply waffled on about a New World Order, and the collapse of WTC7.

When asked to suggest means, motive and opportunity, you come up totally empty.

Incidentally, I don't "claim to believe" how it happened.

I simply select, on the basis of logic, plausibility and the weight of evidence, the theory that makes more sense.

Yours I rejected, on the basis that it defied logic, had zero credibility, and relied upon suspect assumptions.

And you love twisting simple statements to make them fit your warped views, don't you?

>>You're the one who is claiming to know for a fact that in the US population of close to 300 million in 2001 there would not have been sufficient numbers of people prepared to carry out the September 11 attacks.<<

Wrong again. I merely asked you how much do you think it would cost to buy the cooperation of one American citizen, to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood.

A question that you are avoiding like the plague.

Not surprisingly. Because it is a fairly fundamental requirement for your scenario, and you know that the answer would give the entire game away.

Right?

Pericles wrote, "Not that different, eh?"

I would suggest there's a lot of difference between "[me] readily admit[ting], ... that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" and the words of mine that you quoted.

Are you going to show where I admitted that I "haven't the faintest idea how it was all done", Pericles?

---

Pericles, what useful purpose is served by repeating your claims that I haven't made any worthwhile contributions to this discussion? ("You have simply waffled on about a New World Order, and the collapse of WTC7. ... (blah, blah, rant, rave, blah, rhubarb, blah) ")

Do you really think that if what you have said is true that others won't be able to work that out for themselves without you having to remind them of that at every possible opportunity?

---

Pericles wrote, "Wrong again. I merely asked you how much do you think it would cost to buy the cooperation of one American citizen, to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood."

I have no idea.

Why don't you tell us what you think the going rate is and then tell us what point you are trying to make?

If the point that you are trying to make is that the amount of money necessary to pay American professional killers to kill American citizens would make the whole cost of 9/11 prohibitively expensive even with $2.3 trillion having gone missing, then that seems to me to be logically the same as saying that you "know for a fact that in the US population of close to 300 million in 2001 there would not have been sufficient numbers of people prepared to carry out the September 11 attacks."

Of course, daggett. Your wish is my command.

>>Are you going to show where I admitted that I "haven't the faintest idea how it was all done", Pericles?<<

Here was my question to you.

"For example, have you any thoughts on how it all was put together? How many people were involved, how they sourced the necessary materials, how they managed to put all these explosives in place so expertly, how they managed to coordinate the explosions, and how they remain completely undetected?"

Which you still haven't answered, of course, because, as you so rightly responded:

"Yes, I have Pericles, but I am not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so."

If you do have any "thoughts on how it all was put together", you have kept them to yourself. Which would indicate that you haven't the faintest idea.

If you had, I'm sure we would have heard all about it by now.

Earlier in the same thread, you also told me...

"Anyhow, as I said, I don't have all the answers that are demanded of me."

As it turned out, you had none. Just more fantasy.

>>Do you really think that if what you have said is true that others won't be able to work that out for themselves without you having to remind them of that at every possible opportunity?<<

It's not others that need reminding, daggett. They long since lost interest. It's only you that needs help.

But at least we have managed to make progress on one front.

>>I have no idea.<<

You have no idea how much it would take to buy the cooperation of an American to murder his fellow-citizens in cold blood, and remain silent about it, not boast about it, not write memoirs, not make deathbed confessions etc etc.

That pretty much settles that, then, as far as the balance of probabilities is concerned.

Of course, in a Die Hard screenplay, anything's possible.

Pericles wrote:

"It's not others that need reminding, daggett. They long since lost interest. It's only you that needs help."

So, why does Pericles continue to post to a forum that he insists no-one is reading?

---

Anyone looking for substantiation of Pericles' claim that I "readily admit[ted] ... that [I] haven't the faintest idea how it was all done" will look in vain in Pericles' latest long meandering 'contribution'.

I consider the precise amount necessary to pay the saboteurs is a detail that is not essential to this argument.

Note, also, that Pericles also declined to provide a figure of what he believed would be necessary to pay them for that work.

Obviously, given the vast amounts of money unaccounted for in the Pentagon's budget, the necessary funds could easily have been found.