No daggett. I sometimes wonder if you are learning anything at all from our conversations here.

>>He expects others to trust his word<<

Far from it. I expect that everyone will look at the evidence, and the theories, and the comments and observations, and make up their own minds.

Which seems to be an alien concept to you. Unless everyone sees what you see, imagines what you imagine, and draws the same conclusions as you do, you become upset and agitated.

And don't play coy. It's far too late for that.

>>Except, where did I ever argue that it automatically followed that there was a conspiracy by the the Bush Administration?<<

You make the point several times in your "analysis" of the events, that the Bush administration were running the show. A Bush relative, according to you, was even running the security for a building that, you insist, was blown up.

Incidentally, if that is your only defence against the accusation of creating conspiracies out of things that don't exist, it's one of the weakest you've offered to date. Shape up. You have important work to perform.

Anyway, fair's fair. If I am mistaken in my perception of where you sheet the blame, now would be a good time for you to explain a little more clearly, whose conspiracy it was.

Of course if, in your explanation, you contradict anything you have previously posted on the topic, it might just be a smart move to admit it up front.

'Cos you know I'll check, don't you?

Pericles pretends not to understand that I have shown up his attempt to change the subject and his resort to the 'straw man' technique:

">>Except, where did I ever argue that it automatically followed that there was a conspiracy by the the Bush Administration?<<

"You make the point several times in your 'analysis' of the events, that the Bush administration were running the show. ..."

As Pericles well knows, that's not the point I was making.

When one makes a logical argument sometimes several deductive stages are necessary. I was only attempting to deal with one deductive stage at a time and not all of them at once, contrary to what Pericles would have had people believe.

I was challenging Pericles' claim that "[he has] found nothing in the official account of 9/11 that gives [him] reason to doubt it."

As one who accepted the official account of 9/11 and even welcomed the invasion of Afghanistan, I truly expected that it would only be a matter of months after the commencement of that invasion that there would be trials and convictions of the perpetrators of 9/11 from amongst the hundreds of the "worst of the worst" captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, just to begin with.

Yet eight and a half years later, not one of the "worst of the worst" has been put on trial and not one of the many hundreds of others illegally kidnapped and tortured has been brought to trial, either.

Now, if I hadn't changed my views on 9/11, I would have at least conceded by now that that fact was one good reason to doubt the official account of 9/11.

If Pericles was honest, he would have acknowledged that point and responded to it, but, instead, he tried to change the subject by setting up and then demolishing a straw man.

Maybe it's because you're complicating things unnecessarily, daggett.

>>When one makes a logical argument sometimes several deductive stages are necessary. I was only attempting to deal with one deductive stage at a time and not all of them at once, contrary to what Pericles would have had people believe.<<

This is just tap-dancing, daggett, my point was still competely valid, as you well know.

The search for conspiracies-that-aren't-there relies heavily on things that don't exist.

>>not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured in 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan, that supposed hot-bed of international terrorism, or, indeed, anywhere else<<

The absence of any "captures" is offered as evidence of a conspiracy.

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

The absence of documentation - on account of it having been conveniently destroyed by a direct hit by a hijacked plane, on the exact part of the Pentagon where the accountants were - is held to be proof that it held information that showed where the "missing trillions" had gone.

Hardly a "straw man", daggett. You need to try a lot harder than that to sweep it under the carpet.

>>If Pericles was honest, he would have acknowledged that point and responded to it, but, instead, he tried to change the subject by setting up and then demolishing a straw man.<<

Look, I know it is only a small point, and probably rather pedantic, but the construction should be subjunctive, hence "If Pericles were honest".

http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/examples.html

If I am to be insulted, I would prefer the insults to be grammatical.

I know you will understand, and thank you for your cooperation.

Pericles rebuilds the same straw man he has already demolished only two days before and proceeds to demolish it again:

"The absence of any 'captures' is offered as evidence of a conspiracy."

Once again:

No it is not in and of itself evidence of conspiracy. I consider it good reason to doubt the official account of 9/11, the account that maintains that Afghanistan and Pakistan were hotbeds of international terrorism from which 9/11, 7/7 the Bali bombings, etc. were launched.

Now, is Pericles either going to explain why that is not good reason to doubt the official account of 9/11 or will he concede that it is?

---

Pericles wrote, "The absence of documentation - on account of it having been conveniently destroyed by a direct hit by a hijacked plane, is held to be proof that it held information that showed where the 'missing trillions' had gone."

Where did I claim that and why would I have?

Once again:

Rumsfeld himself said that the Pentagon had lost track of US$2.3 trillion, which to me means precisely that same as 'missing'. Until all that money shows up (and we know of $300 million that will never be recovered thanks to US Marine whistleblower John Minnery) there is no way that Pericles can't know that any of the funds were not used for 9/11.

Most likely the crashing of Flight 77 into the Pentagon has a lot to do with the fact that all that $2.3 trillion is still missing, but it is not critical to my argument given Rumsfeld's own admission.

---

The fact that Pericles denied my claim that hundreds of billions of Pentagon funds had gone missing whilst fully aware of that admission by Rumsfeld is confirmation that Pericles' word cannot be trusted.

Hello, it's Groundhog Day.

Déjà vu, all over again.

>>Now, is Pericles either going to explain why that is not good reason to doubt the official account of 9/11 or will he concede that it is?<<

Absolutely not. The absence of evidence does not provide good reason to doubt anything. In fact, to most people, it suggests the opposite - nothing to see here, move along.

>>Where did I claim that and why would I have?<<

I can't provide your motive, daggett, but you clearly wanted us to believe that the information that would have exposed the "missing trillions" was destroyed by Flight 77. If not, why mention it at all?

>>Rumsfeld himself said that the Pentagon had lost track of US$2.3 trillion, which to me means precisely that same as 'missing'.<<

I know that to you "lost track of" means "missing". I occasionally use the same formula with my car keys. But in this instance, it is crystal clear from the context and content of the speech, that he meant nothing of the sort.

>>Most likely the crashing of Flight 77 into the Pentagon has a lot to do with the fact that all that $2.3 trillion is still missing<<

In what way?

Do you have any theories that don't contradict what you said just a minute ago... "Where did I claim that and why would I have"

>>The fact that Pericles denied my claim that hundreds of billions of Pentagon funds had gone missing whilst fully aware of that admission by Rumsfeld is confirmation that Pericles' word cannot be trusted.<<

Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean that no-one else can.

Ok, that was ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.

care to go round again?

Pericles waffles, "The absence of evidence does not provide good reason to doubt anything. In fact, to most people, it suggests the opposite - nothing to see here, move along."

So, is Pericles now trying to argue that the apparent complete absence of terrorists linked to 9/11 in Afghanistan is stronger confirmation that that country is where 9/11 was plotted and terrorists used in 9/11 and other attacks trained than if terrorists linked to 9/11 had been captured?

Pericles waffles more, "I know that to you 'lost track of' means 'missing'. I occasionally use the same formula with my car keys. But in this instance, it is crystal clear from the context and content of the speech, that he meant nothing of the sort."

So is Pericles trying to tell us that whenever he "los[es] track of" his car keys that he never finds them again?

If not, would Pericles care to explain when did the Pentagon ever regained track of any of the $2.3 trillion that they had lost track of and how much they regained track of?