My, what a sensitive litle possum we are, aren't we daggett?

>>What kind of despicable creep would be capable of introducing this vicious libel into the discussion, Pericles?<<

And the "vicious libel" is the suggestion that your personal class war might extend to a disdain for opera-goers.

"I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there"

Quelle horreur!

Call out the guard, Cynthia, the barbarians are at the gate!

Never has a calumny been so heinously uttered.

Whatever next?

>>It adds no more to the discussion than if I were to ask Pericles how much he would have to be paid to rape his grandmother.<<

Ah, but it most certainly does, daggett.

I would have considerable difficulty, as you might expect, answering such a question as yours. It would involve such a broad and deep range of sins, I would definitely find it difficult to live with myself and my secret afterwards, whatever the amount of money we agreed.

Fortunately, raping my grandmother would not further the cause of destroying prominent New York buildings.

But you have to admit that on the other hand, violently ending the lives of fellow-citizens, in cold blood, and without discernible motive, is an essential component of your 9/11 scenario.

Therefore the question, what is the dollar value of such betrayal, is most definitely directly relevant.

Your sudden attack of the vapours at my passing reference to the class chip clearly visible on your shoulder, might have something to do with the fact that you have absolutely no answer to the question.

Business as usual, in fact.

I see Pericles remains unrepentant about his vicious libel against me:

"I tried to make the point by asking you how much it would take to buy your commitment to blow up the Opera House, and all the people inside it. I chose the Opera House because I suspect that you despise the sort of people who go there, thus making it a little easier to imagine."

Instead he compounds his vicious libel with the statement:

"[My] sudden attack of the vapours at my passing reference to the class chip clearly visible on [my] shoulder, ..."

So, will Pericles ever provide an example of anything I have posted that would cause any reasonable person to conclude that I would be capable of committing mass murder?

Pericles wrote, "It would involve such a broad and deep range of sins, I would definitely find it difficult to live with myself and my secret afterwards, whatever the amount of money we agreed."

Well, I would hope not.

But apparently he can live with stooping to accuse another of being capable of committing just such a crime without any basis for doing so.

---

Anyway to get around to the chore of dispensing with Pericles' latest excuse to avoid discussing the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement:

We know for a fact that American professional killers are capable of committing mass murder against people from other countries and we know for a fact that some US citizens are capable of murdering fellow Americans for money.

An example of the latter is the 'suicide' of Lieutenant Commander Bill Pitzer on 29 October 1966 just three days before he was to retire from the Navy. (Are you paying attention, PynchMe?) He had a film of President JFK's autopsy that would have blown out of the water the Warren Commission lie that JFK's fatal wound came from behind rather than from the front. That film was not found after Pitzer's death.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Years later, in 1995, a former Green Beret Daniel Marvin approached Pitzer's widow to inform her that he had been asked to kill Pitzer by the CIA. He had been told that Pitzer was a 'traitor' who was going to give information to the 'enemy'. Only after he saw Pitzer's name listed amongst the names of mysterious deaths linked to the JFK assassination, years later, at the end of a documentary did Marvin draw the connection.

Marvin would have killed Pitzer except that he thought it inappropriate for a Green Beret to kill a fellow American on US soil. So he declined, but clearly another did undertake the task. (Douglass, pp 315-321)

No doubt the same would have happened to many others linked to the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 who died mysteriously, but of course it would be difficult to prove.

Given the fact that

A. Professional American killers have killed fellow Americans;

B. Professional American killers have killed large numbers of people from other countries;

C. The necessary funds to pay for the work could easily have been found from amongst the vast sums of money unaccounted for in the Pentagon Budget,

... how can Pericles know for a fact that a sufficient number of professional killers, willing to murder fellow citizens could not have been found to perpetrate 9/11?

The fact is:

1. That the hypothesis that American saboteurs planted the explosives necessary to demolish the Word Trade Center Towers is the only explanation I know of which can account for what has bee observed;

2. Pericles has provided no other explanation which can account for those observations.

Unrepentant? An understatement, daggett. Something with which you appear entirely unfamiliar.

>>I see Pericles remains unrepentant about his vicious libel against me<<

Your capacity for exaggeration is all of a piece with your predilection for global conspiracies. But attempting to squeeze any form of libel - let alone the vicious sort - from my invitation to think more clearly, is beyond even your capabilities, I'm afraid.

>>But apparently he can live with stooping to accuse another of being capable of committing just such a crime without any basis for doing so.<<

Show me exactly where I accused you, and we'll have a look at who is "stooping" here.

As far as your latest attempt to provide even the vaguest of scenarios is concerned, it would help a great deal if you would provide checkable references once in a while.

I am aware of course, that each time you do so, it takes only a few minutes to debunk, which is why you are so reluctant. However, it is good practice to give us the benefit of your exhaustive - and probably exhausting - research. I know it's your hobby, daggett, but not everyone has the time and patience that you obviously do.

Be a good chap, and provide a link to your sources. Then I can give your theories the four or five minutes of attention they deserve.

I can see Pericles has failed, not for the first time, to substantiate an allegation against me.

Obviously, Pericles did not directly accuse me of being a person capable of committing mass murder, but the sick and unmistakable implication was clearly there.

---

Pericles, wrote, "... it takes only a few minutes to debunk, ..."

Rubbish!

Where have you debunked anything I have written?

Pericles complains, "... it would help a great deal if you would provide checkable references once in a while."

In fact I have provided many more checkable resources as well as much more substance to this discussion than you have.

In this case, I am afraid I can't do much to help when the reference I provided is contained in a printed book.

You could order yourself a copy of "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters". It cost me $52 to have it posted. I think it' around $46 if you collect it from your bookshop. Everyone has has assured me that it is well worth the money.

In any case, if anything I have written was not factual, I am sure your handlers would have told you by now.

Here's a great example of daggett-logic.

>>I can see Pericles has failed, not for the first time, to substantiate an allegation against me. Obviously, Pericles did not directly accuse me of being a person capable of committing mass murder, but the sick and unmistakable implication was clearly there.<<

So, I didn't accuse you of anything.

But I couldn't substantiate the allegation I didn't make.

Classic. A ready-made guide to the daggett thought processes. Such as they are.

I'd be fascinated to see what you consider to be a "sick and unmistakable implication" that you are a mass murderer. That would be equally illuminating, I suspect.

>>In this case, I am afraid I can't do much to help when the reference I provided is contained in a printed book.<<

That's handy.

You see daggett, the reason it is always a good idea to ask you to provide some context to your "references" is that they disappear like morning mist, when examined more closely.

You take a quote out of its original context, as you did - repeatedly - with Rumsfeld's speech.

You change the words around, just a little. As you did on the other thread with the Woodrow Wilson "quote".

Then you say "look, this proves it".

It is your trademark modus operandi. And I'm afraid it won't work any more.

>>In any case, if anything I have written was not factual, I am sure your handlers would have told you by now.<<

I am still looking for something in your posts that bears a remote resemblance to what is generally considered to be factual. So far, it is a mass of garbled innuendo, lacking any kind of basis in reality besides that which you yourself provide - the international cabal of elite wossnames that according to you, rule the world.

If I do find something of any substance, you may be sure I will pass it on to my "handlers".