Note how Pericles repeatedly goaded me into responding to his sick 'mental exercise':

"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. ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=24)

"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." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=27)

"I only asked for the price of one, daggett.

"Just one. ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=27)

"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." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=28)

Yet, when I take the effort respond to his mental 'exercise' (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=28 - 2 posts dated 11 March, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=29) my arguments are neither acknowledged nor responded to. His first excuse is to complain that he can't check my sources because it is in in a printed book. His second is simply:

"Again that warped perspective, daggett.

"Your 'explanation' is not plausible, as I have tried to point out to you." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=29)

So, when I refuse to respond to his sick 'mental exercise', I am accused of "have[ing] absolutely no answer to the question" and when I do, my responses are ignored.

So, Pericles now 'almost' wishes he had uttered his libel explicitly instead of shrouding it beneath his disingenuous 'mental exercise'.

I would suggest that this makes it abundantly clear that my impression was correct.

Pericles attempts to ridicule my assurances that I did indeed read that the crash of Flight 77 destroyed records of an investigation into the missing trillions in the Pentagon Budget:

"I'm sure you did."

... as if anyone should be in the least concerned by his feigned disbelief.

Of course the person who has been shown up to be the liar is Pericles, himself, who knowing full well that $2.3 trillion had gone missing (or, to use Rumsfeld's spin "we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions") denied my claim that hundreds of billions of Pentagon had gone missing from the Pentagon budget:

"For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21)

It's ok, daggett, I understand

>>Note how Pericles repeatedly goaded me into responding to his sick 'mental exercise': "What would be your price?<<

You obviously don't believe this is a reasonable question to ask. Which is why you haven't answered it.

The responses you did offer were exclusively about the mysterious "other people" that you believe regularly take the CIA shilling to do their dirty work for them.

I happen to believe that the scenario you present - that there are hundreds of Americans willing and capable of performing the tasks that you, albeit very vaguely, outline for them - requires too much faith in the existence of your secret cabal with limitless cash, and too little in the basic traits of human nature.

The reason I asked you in the first place, was to encourage you to treat this as a real-life happening, rather than leave it in the realms of a Die Hard screenplay.

How many times did you think to yourself during that movie, "that wouldn't happen in real life"? Well, this is the same exercise: tell me how much it would cost to buy these people, in real life.

Once we have established how much it would take, we could move on to the recruiting process itself.

Obviously they wouldn't advertise in the press, or put the job description up on Seek. So how did they do it? And what happened to those people who said "I don't care if daggett would do it for $x million. There's no way I'm killing fellow-Americans"?

Who are they?

Where are they?

Silence doesn't invariably indicate conspiracy. It might also indicate absence. A lack. A non-existence. Especially when there is no incentive to keep silent.

If it is any consolation to you, I do genuinely believe that you "read that the crash of Flight 77 destroyed records of an investigation into the missing trillions in the Pentagon Budget"

My comment was the blog-equivalent of a raised, incredulous eyebrow. All you now need to do now is to remember where you read it, and we can examine the theory together.

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

It remains 'subsidiary' because Rumsfeld himself admitted on 10 September 2001 that $2.3 trillion had gone missing.

And you remain a liar, because even though you already knew that fact you maintained that it was a myth that billions of dollars had gone missing.

You just love calling me a liar, don't you daggett.

I'm beginning to think it has become a fixation with you.

>>Rumsfeld himself admitted on 10 September 2001 that $2.3 trillion had gone missing. And you remain a liar, because even though you already knew that fact you maintained that it was a myth that billions of dollars had gone missing.<<

You know perfectly well what Rumsfeld actually said, daggett. And you really are intelligent enough to know the difference between "$2.3 trillion had gone missing", as you put it, and "we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions", as Rumsfeld stated.

I'm actually quite puzzled why you insist that they are the same, given that a factual record exists of the entire speech.

Perhaps it is because without the sequestering of tons of greenbacks by your mysterious band of elite banksters, the entire construction you have built around 9/11 collapses like... well, like WTC7, I guess.

I'd just like to remind you while you are here, that you haven't yet risen to the challenge of identifying the price that each of your alleged participants would demand, for their part in the cold-blooded murder of their fellow-Americans. Or what might have happened to those who declined the - undoubtedly generous - offer.

Pericles, believe it or not, I would prefer not to have to spend hours of my days dealing with habitual liars in the first place.

You hid behind your lie that there were no missing billions with which the demolitions of the WTC towers could have been funded to avoid confronting the clear evidence from http://ae911truth.org that they were demolished with explosives.

Yet, all along, as you admitted, you knew perfectly well that the Pentagon was, in terms of Rumsfeld's spin, unable to keep track of $2.3 trillion.

Well, as far as I am concerned, until Rumsfeld and the Pentagon find themselves again able to keep track of all or any of that $2.3 trillion, that money has gone missing.

As I showed US Marine Corps whistleblowers, John Minnery was unable to find $300 million and his superiors simply wrote that money off.

So, there is $300 million for a start that has definitely and permanently gone missing by anyone's definition.

How much of the rest of the $2.3 trillion can Pericles tell us has:

A. been similarly written off;

B. still "cannot [be] track[ed]" in Rumsfeld's terms;

C. been accounted for?

By my definition, all money remains missing until such time as it ends up in category C and I expect any reasonable person would agree with that definition.

Pericles (once again) demands that I "[rise] to the challenge of identifying the price that each of your alleged participants would demand, for their part in the cold-blooded murder of their fellow-Americans."

Note that Pericles has ignored my responses of 11 April 2010 10:14:50 PM and 11 April 2010 10:16:27 PM at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=28 to that question.

Why should I waste my time responding to a proven habitual liar who refuses to acknowledge the evidence and arguments I put?