I can well understand that, daggett.

>>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.<<

But if you are referring to me - which from the context of this and a jillion other posts, you seem to be - I would gently point out that you have not yet identified a single place where I have lied to you.

>>You hid behind your lie that there were no missing billions with which the demolitions of the WTC towers could have been funded<<

That is a "conclusion made from available evidence", daggett.

Hardly a lie.

For my part. I wouldn't stoop to brand as a lie every one of your "conclusions made from available evidence", even though the vast majority of them are based on considerably more dubious premises than those I present.

But it's actually ok with me that you insist with every post that I am a liar. It demonstrates far better than I ever could that your arguments rely upon shouting and stamping your foot, rather than logic and consistency.

>>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.<<

We have been over this a number of times.

The key phrase here is "as far as I am concerned".

That means that you give yourself leave to apply any interpretation you like on the facts. And at the same time, presumably, permit yourself to call anyone who disagrees with you, a liar.

As far as I am concerned, daggett, you are determined to twist a perfectly reasonable and administratively responsible statement into something it is not.

And at the same time, call Rumsfeld's honest assessment of the state of the IT systems, "spin".

Hilarious.

And please, if it makes you feel any better, you may start every one of your posts to me "Pericles, you're lying again", and I won't feel in the least bit offended.

Now that's very odd, daggett.

>>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?<<

D'you know, I looked really, really carefully, and I couldn't find a single word that you offered in response to the question I posed.

Is that because i) there isn't one, or ii) I did not look hard enough?

Do us all a favour, daggett, and place your response next to the question, so that we can all see how completely and directly you answered it.

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

This would be a very appropriate place to cut'n'paste a reply, by the way. Since you insist that you have already answered the question, that shouldn't be too arduous.

In truth, there was more to my previous reply.

However, mindful of how Pericles habitually and dishonestly ignores my arguments and evidence including the response I made above to his same question, I did not include it.

Here it is:

What would be the point of providing my own estimate of the figure that Pericles demands? I am not an expert in what is the going rate for saboteurs and professional killers in the US at the time.

Nevertheless, as I showed cleared that there are people who are willing to kill large numbers of foreign citizens for money and there are people who are prepared to kill fellow US citizens for money.

Of course, it has yet to be conclusively proven that US citizens murdered almost 3,000 fellow citizens on 11 September 2001.

However, as neither Pericles nor anyone else as far as I am aware have provided any other plausible explanation as to how the three WTC towers 'collapsed', that hypothesis should be investigated.

Yet it has not been investigated.

---

Note also how Pericles has not responded to my argument over Rumsfeld's terminology.

If the money had not gone missing, then I would have thought that they would have found some way to again account for those transactions after all this time.

So, how much of the $2.3 trillion is the Pentagon still not able to keep track of, Pericles?

How much longer need that situation persist before Pericles finally concedes that it has gone missing after all?

---

Of course the whole purpose of Pericles' pedantry is to throw up a smokescreen to conceal is blatant dishonesty.

His dishonesty was his insistence contrary to what he, himself, knew to be the case, that there were ample missing funds available that could easily have been diverted to pay for the demolition of the towers and other aspects of the the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack.

So in fact your answer was "I refuse to give an answer", daggett.

Q: 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: What would be the point of providing my own estimate of the figure that Pericles demands?

Now it's your turn. Fair's fair.

Q: how much of the $2.3 trillion is the Pentagon still not able to keep track of, Pericles?

A: "According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Of course, however much remains unaccounted for, and/or written off, it doesn't mean that a single penny went to the bank accounts of your secret international band of elites, or to funding a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre.

Or anywhere at all, for that matter.

>>How much longer need that situation persist before Pericles finally concedes that it has gone missing after all?<<

For all we know, there may be a stack of invoices somewhere that will appear in 2090, or in Cleveland Ohio, or in another space/time dimension - or all three - that will eventually balance the books.

With the level of administrative competence shown in many military supply units, I could well have shuffled off this mortal coil long before the story is completed.

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg37469.html

http://www.philipjohnston.com/news/te270200.htm

When you have to make a choice between conspiracy and incompetence, pick incompetence.

Every time.

Pericles wrote, "So in fact your answer was 'I refuse to give an answer', daggett."

As I explained several times, it's a stupid question.

Why don't you answer your own question, then, Pericles?

---

Pericles again attempts to change the subject in a desperate attempt to avoid having to admit his dishonesty:

"Of course, however much remains unaccounted for, and/or written off, it doesn't mean that a single penny went to the bank accounts of your secret international band of elites, or to funding a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre."

No. Pericles, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

But neither does it mean that those funds could not have been used to fund 9/11, contrary to your dishonest insistence that there is no way that the money could have been found.

The point also remains that if you already knew that $2.3 trillion remained unaccounted for (as you now put it) then you lied when you insisted that it was a myth that hundreds of billions of dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget.

If eventually invoices which fully account for all that $2.3 trillion can be found, then obviously, at that point, the funds can be considered fully accounted for, but Pericles has provided no reason, other than wishful thinking, to assume that that will ever happen.

No doubt about it, daggett, you are a constant - and apparently, never-ending - source of fun and amusement.

>>Pericles wrote, "So in fact your answer was 'I refuse to give an answer', daggett." As I explained several times, it's a stupid question.<<

I know it is a very difficult question. But it isn't by any means a stupid one, as you suggest.

The idea is to help you bring your thinking processes into line with real world possibilities. Your general idea of what happened on 9/11 requires that a substantial number of people jettison any idea of a future, and sell themselves into a plot that murders, in cold blood, thousands of their fellow-Americans.

Since this was a sort of cornerstone to your concept, I thought I'd direct your attention to the practical detail for a moment. If you choose not to answer it - fine. But it remains relevant, like it or not.

And however much you try, you won't get this across the line, I'm afraid.

>>The point also remains that if you already knew that $2.3 trillion remained unaccounted for (as you now put it) then you lied when you insisted that it was a myth that hundreds of billions of dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget.<<

I do indeed insist that there is not a shred of evidence that any money had been redirected into the bank accounts of a cabal of international banksters, or in fact, into your account, daggett.

There's a thought.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence that the money, if it existed, was sent to you, rather than to your secret society of conspirators.

Is that not the case?

So daggett, where did you hide it?

C'mon, 'fess up. You've had it all along, haven't you? And you're inventing all this stuff to distract attention from yourself.

Go on, prove me wrong.