Note, how, once again, Pericles has refused to either acknowledge his deliberate lie or apologise for it:

"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."

And this is what the above is supposedly in response to:

"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."

---

Pericles wrote, "The idea is to help you bring your thinking processes into line with real world possibilities. ..."

If Pericles was not the liar that he has shown himself to be, he would acknowledge that I have obviously put a great deal of thought into this very question instead of continuing to lecture me on this forum as if I was a child.

You are going to have to give some thought to your style guide, daggett. Your opening lines are becoming remarkably predictable.

>>Note, how, once again, Pericles has refused to either acknowledge his deliberate lie or apologise for it<<

You state that my "lie" is to insist "that it was a myth that hundreds of billions of dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget."

If you actually read what I wrote, daggett, instead of what you think I wrote, I merely pointed out that there is a huge difference between something being unaccounted for, and "missing", in the sense that you want the word to mean.

You want it to mean "misappropriated" or "stolen" or "diverted". Furthermore, you want us to believe that it found its way into the bank accounts of organizations who use it for terrorist operations against their own people.

And in a Die Hard script, of course it could work. Unfortunately, in the real world, the suspension of disbelief is simply too great for your theory even to reach first base.

I'll treasure this little dummy-spit, by the way.

>>If Pericles was not the liar that he has shown himself to be, he would acknowledge that I have obviously put a great deal of thought into this very question instead of continuing to lecture me on this forum as if I was a child.<<

That is most unfair. I most certainly acknowledge the great deal of thought you have put into this question, as well as the entire 9/11 saga.

What you haven't done, on the specific question of "follow the money", is to provide even the remotest shred of a notion of how it all happened or was put together. Right down to the mundane detail of who was recruited to do the deed, and how much they would need to be paid.

Nothing.

Bupkis.

You might like to give this some thought, too, in your quieter moments.

The consistent thread through your arguments is that enough money can make anything happen. Invisibly, and unnoticed.

It doesn't. It always leaves clues.

Even in the movies.

Once again, this is where Pericles lied to this forum:

"For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military." (Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:39:50 AM http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21)

And this is where he admitted that he knew all along that Rumsfeld, himself, admitted on 10 September 2001 that the Pentagon was unable to keep track of $23.3 trillion:

"And this old chestnut.

">>In fact, according to Donald Rumsfeld, himself, on 10 September 2001, the figure is even higher. It could be as high as $2.3 trillion.<<" (Thursday, 1 April 2010 8:44:02 AM http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21)

Pericles waffling on (yet again) about whether or not it can be proven, that any, some or all of the $2.3 trillion in transactions, that the Pentagon could not "track" on 10 September 2001, were used to fund 9/11, entirely misses the point.

It's hard enough having to deal with incessant ad hominem attacks and the rest of the debaters' tricks in the repertoires of the likes of Pericles, but I see no reason why anyone should be expected to treat seriously any words posted here by such a proven habitual liar.

---

And it's also an implicit lie that I have not already answered over and over and over again the remaining 'arguments' in Pericles' most recent posts.

You have many endearing habits, daggett, but one of the most delightful is your ability to call someone "a proven habitual liar", while in the very same sentence accuse them of "incessant ad hominem attacks"

Truly epic.

Another of your chuckleworthy traits is to contradict yourself, so perfectly, while making the "habitual liar" accusation.

Take this one, for example.

>>Once again, this is where Pericles lied to this forum: "For 'means', you rely on some mythical billions set aside by the US military."<<

This is, as you would be perfectly aware, absolutely consistent with all my previous statements on the possibility of Rumsfeld's funds being diverted to your 9/11 theory.

The "means", in case you have forgotten, refers to the absence of "means, motive and opportunity". And as I said, there is no evidence whatsoever of dollar one, let alone billions, being sequestered for the use of terrorists. That's what "set aside" means.

Hence, they are "mythical". They exist only in your imagination. Where all myths live.

>>this is where he admitted that he knew all along that Rumsfeld, himself, admitted on 10 September 2001 that the Pentagon was unable to keep track of $23.3 trillion<<

Ah, daggett. It was I who pointed out to you that Rumsfeld complained that the transactions could not be tracked. It was you who said that the money was missing. I wish you could remember that.

And surely...

>>whether or not it can be proven, that any, some or all of the $2.3 trillion in transactions, that the Pentagon could not "track" on 10 September 2001, were used to fund 9/11, entirely misses the point.<<

...the fact that a) it can't be shown to be missing at all, and b) it can't be shown that any money ended up with the secret cabal of international banksters is, precisely, the point?

>>And it's also an implicit lie that I have not already answered over and over and over again the remaining 'arguments' in Pericles' most recent posts.<<

Sadly not, daggett.

It isn't an "implicit lie".

It is an explicit truth.

Pericles,

I have no interest in maintaining this discussion with you.

You can go on forever attempting to deny your attempt to deceive this forum, but I believe that any reasonable person will see still be able to see your deception for what it is.

I sincerely hope this is not the case, daggett.

>>Pericles, I have no interest in maintaining this discussion with you.<<

It would be a great shame.

I was really looking forward to finding out where you were going to take our discussion next.

But if it has to be, it has to be.

Ave atque vale.