I've been watching this thread with some bemusement, and I have to inform Arjay that it's not Pericles who has no credibility here.

Christopher,

In order to be considered credible yourself, you need to have first demonstrated a comprehension of the case of those you are arguing against.

Now, where have you even once demonstrated any comprehension whatsoever of the case of the 9/11 Truth movement?

Certainly no-where in that prolonged discussion on 9/11 Truth that began in September 2008 at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82

James Sinnamon, I think that my credibility with respect to your conspiracy fantasies is demonstrated by the fact that I treat them as the crock that they are, and don't generally give you and your fellow delusionists any oxygen when you rave on about them.

Do carry on anyway - it's often a source of mild amusement.

Arjay, that was a poor effort, even for you.

>>You have shot yourself in the foot yet again Pericles."Who is Richard Gage?" Now some time ago you informed me that you actually did an extensive examination of http://ae911truth.org/ and found it to be fallacious.Richard Gage is the Architect who founded this organisation and is prominent in most of the literature, esp Blueprint for Truth.<<

I asked: "Was Richard Gage a fireman, too?", which is not even a close relative of "Who is Richard Gage".

You are certainly scraping the barrel if you need to put words into my mouth in order to refute them. Sad, really.

And daggett:

>>I, for one, would certainly be most interested to learn what on http://ae911truth.org Pericles found to be fallacious and why.<<

Pretty much all of it, really. I suspect the URL is genuine. And most of it appears to be written in English. However I will admit to a degree of boredom setting in after a while, when I realized that there was no evidence beyond the circumstantial, no particularly compelling narrative that explained a motive, no clear examination of the means, and nothing beyond the wildest conjecture for opportunity.

Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln...

Pericles,

You have not told us what was wrong with any of specific http://ae911truth.org

All you have claimed is that it lacked certain other information which you insist is necessary.

Regardless of whether or not there was "no particularly compelling narrative that explained a motive, no clear examination of the means, and nothing beyond the wildest conjecture for opportunity" are you able to provide a specific example of any material on the site which you can show to be wrong?

---

Thanks, CJ Morgon, for yet another illuminating post from you on 9/11.

Yet, somehow, I can't help but wonder:

If, in the unlikely event that I were to change my views again on 9/11 and come to the view that George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had been telling us the truth about 9/11 all along, would you be able to help me argue my case to others?

I should have typed:

"You have not told us what was wrong with any specific part of http://ae911truth.org"

---

Also, my apologies to Christopher for having misspelt his surname with that added 'g'.