Pericles pretends not to remember his own words which I have quoted back at him twice so far:

"I'd be fascinated to see what you consider to be a 'sick and unmistakable implication' that you are a mass murderer."

Here they are again, Pericles:

"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."

As I wrote, the implication was sick and unmistakable.

Pericles complains of my having cited a printed book.

He claims that I had tried to misrepresent Donald Rumsfeld by quoting him out of context and therefore, presumably, I cannot be trusted to cite any document that he can't check online.

Firstly, if I can be accused of quoting Rumsfeld out of context, then so can CBS news, whose story at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml I cited.

As I wrote, "It doesn't matter a jot whether the words are taken in or out of the context of Rumsfeld's encompassing spin, the fact remains, the money has gone missing." (Wednesday, 7 April 2010 7:27:48 AM)

Anyone who checks the genesis of the discussion for themselves will see that the dishonesty in that exchange began with Pericles and remained with Pericles all along.

The original dishonesty was Pericles insistence that there simply weren't funds available to fund 9/11.

Pericles wrote, "For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military, ..." (Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:39:50 AM)

I responded, "The hundreds of billions were not mythical, Pericles. Many of the records were conveniently destroyed by Flight 75 or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon on 11 September 2001." (Wednesday, 24 March 2010 4:03:02 PM)

Then Pericles wrote, "Why, of course. How convenient.

"But if they were destroyed, how do you know they ever existed? ... (blah, blah, rant, rave, rhubarb, blah)" (24 March 2010 5:41:28 PM)

After I pointed out that Rumsfeld, himself had admitted that $2.3 trillion had gone missing on 10 September 2001 (Thursday, 1 April 2010 7:13:37 AM), Pericles admitted that he knew of it all along:

"And this old chestnut. ..." (Thursday, 1 April 2010 8:44:02 AM)

So, anyone who checks this and any of Pericles's other utterances will be able to see that if anyone here can't be trusted to cite a work not available online it would have to be Pericles.

What a waste of a fine intelligence, daggett.

>>As I wrote, the implication was sick and unmistakable.<<

If you consider this simple mental exercise to be "sick", can you imagine the reaction of the hundreds of people that your cabal of international elite banksters must have approached with their particular proposition?

In fact, stretch your mind even further, and ask yourself how many people would have refused the offer of payment to murder their fellow citizens in cold blood.

What happened to them? The people who refused? Were they, in keeping with your Die Hard scenario, simply "blown away"?

Face it daggett. The more you look at the basic mechanics behind your wacky theory, the less plausible it becomes.

But of course, you don't actually have a theory, since you are "not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so", are you.

You are still confused about Rumsfeld, I notice.

I give you the courtesy of the full transcription of his speech, and you still insist that "Rumsfeld, himself had admitted that $2.3 trillion had gone missing on 10 September 2001".

Which, of course, he did not. You prefer to read other people's reports, instead of the original, because they share your craving for drama over reality.

>>if I can be accused of quoting Rumsfeld out of context, then so can CBS news<<

And if you don't mind, I'll repeat an earlier question, prompted by this little gem of yours:

>>"The hundreds of billions were not mythical, Pericles. Many of the records were conveniently destroyed by Flight 75 or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon on 11 September 2001."<<

How do you know the records existed?

I look forward, as always, to your verbal contortions.

There are obviously sick and twisted people in the world.

The tens of millions killed in wars caused by the US since the end of the Second World War is surely evidence.

However to imply that another person is, himself, capable of the crime of mass murder precisely because he is outspoken against those crimes of mass murder committed by the US and allied governments, as Pericles has done, would have to be one of the most despicable libels imaginable.

---

Obviously the false flag terrorist attack of September 11 2001 goes outside of our own direct experience up until then. For the first time (if we exclude the Oklahoma City bombing) we have the combination of large numbers of people having been killed apparently by paid professional US killers and those people who were killed being American citizens rather than people of another country.

That is why, even supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement acknowledge that they had a great deal of difficulty facing up to that awful implication.

Pericles wrote:

"... can you imagine the reaction of the hundreds of people ... ? ..."

Of course, this always poses difficulties for people intending to orchestrate a monstrous crime, but this doesn't mean that more subtle means to recruit people from amongst a pool of people, judged to be predisposed to be capable of committing that crime cannot be found and it doesn't mean that means cannot be found to silence unwilling people with knowledge of the conspiracy: bribes, intimidation, or killing them outright.

"JFK and the Unspeakable" by James Douglass has abundant documented examples of how this was done to people with knowledge of facts about the murder of JFK that were contrary to the official lie of the Warren Commission.

As I wrote, the explanation that domestic US professional killers and saboteurs carried out 9/11 is the only explanation that accounts for the observed facts and, no-one, least of all, Pericles, has provided a plausible alternative explanation.

That is why it should be properly investigated so that either that explanation is proven or disproven.

Pericles attempts to avoid discussing the missing $2.3trillion in the Pentagon budget by focussing on a subsidiary aspect:

"How do you know the records [of the missing $2.3 trillion] existed [in the part of the Pentagon hit by Flight 77]?"

I read somewhere that that the unaccounted trillions were being investigated by accountants in the part of the Pentagon that was struck by Flight 77.

At the moment I choose not to track down that particular source at least until such time as you show yourself willing to acknowledge the abundant other documentary evidence I have provided.

If, in the meantime, you wish to allege that I made it up, I am happy to let others be the judge of my honesty.

The fact remains that there were vast amounts of funds unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget that could easily have been diverted to pay for 9/11.

Until 9/11 is properly investigated there is no way we can know that that did not happen.

I'm almost wishing I had done so, daggett.

>>However to imply that another person is, himself, capable of the crime of mass murder precisely because he is outspoken against those crimes of mass murder committed by the US and allied governments, as Pericles has done, would have to be one of the most despicable libels imaginable.<<

However much you chunter on about this "despicable libel", it does not change the fact that I merely invited you to consider the mindset of others.

The fact that you are unable to do so pretty much renders you incapable of assessing reality behind your scenarios for 9/11. The more you witter on about it, the more obvious that becomes.

>>even supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement acknowledge that they had a great deal of difficulty facing up to that awful implication.<<

If you say so. Doesn't seem to be given a great deal of emphasis on their web sites, so I guess they managed to get over it.

>>As I wrote, the explanation that domestic US professional killers and saboteurs carried out 9/11 is the only explanation that accounts for the observed facts and, no-one, least of all, Pericles, has provided a plausible alternative explanation.<<

Again that warped perspective, daggett.

Your "explanation" is not plausible, as I have tried to point out to you. You and your website friends have yet to come up with a scenario that fits all the facts. You pick around the edges with some dubious assumptions, but never address the means, motive or the opportunity.

Until you do so, you will continue to substitute imagination for common sense.

>>Pericles attempts to avoid discussing the missing $2.3trillion in the Pentagon budget by focussing on a subsidiary aspect:<<

I referred you to the original script. Hardly a "subsidiary aspect". It was you who introduced the Flight 77 red herring, remember?

>>I read somewhere that that the unaccounted trillions were being investigated by accountants in the part of the Pentagon that was struck by Flight 77.<<

I'm sure you did, daggett.

Pity you didn't cut'n'paste it, like you usually do.