You still seem to be missing the point, daggett.

>>You have not told us what was wrong with any specific part of http://ae911truth.org"... are you able to provide a specific example of any material on the site which you can show to be wrong?<<

Ok, let me see whether I can put it into some perspective for you.

Let's imagine you are reading "The Onion" for the first time.

http://www.theonion.com

You have been told that it is a vital source of information on current affairs.

After a couple of hours, you realize that you are not reading facts, but some fairly clever satire. You are justifiably annoyed that your time has been wasted in this fashion, and that the person who directed you to the site is taking advantage of your gullibility.

You pick up the phone, and give them a blast. The other party expresses surprise, and asks you to point out which particular article was not factual.

What do you do?

The articles themselves are written in way that sounds sincere. The only way you could possibly refute what they are saying is to track down the individuals concerned - if indeed they exist - and check the story - if indeed they have one.

Instead, you do what 99.99% of the rest of the population does.

You say to yourself "hey, this is satire". And start to chuckle along.

How do you know it is satire?

Because the premise behind each article - even though individually within the bounds of "possibility" - bears all the obvious hallmarks of being pure invention, helped along by a massive dose of imagination.

That's also where I stand with your conspiracy site.

Does the situation it describes sound remotely feasible?

Is there sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances?

Does the story, in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief?

I hope this helps you understand, just a little more, where you and I disconnect on this topic.

Pericles and CJ Morgan still refuse to address the phycics,maths and chemistry reality let alone all the other evidence.Just pure derision as your last hope of repose.

John Bursill the Aust representitive of aetruth.org is offering a $100,000.00 bet for CJ Morgan ,Pericles or other detractors to disprove the science,physics & maths.Easy money for you Pericles.

I will up my bet to $20,000.00 More easy money.We will even offer odds in your favour upon agreement of the detail.

No doubt, 'skeptics' and fellow Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists James Randi and Michael Shermer will be falling over themselves to win those bet as we speak, so I wouldn't leave it to long if I were you, Pericles.

James Randi famously offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could prove in scientifically verifiable and repeatable experiments that they had paranormal powers.

If I shared Pericles', James Randi's and Michael Shermer's remarkable understanding of physics that somehow eludes my own limited grasp that makes it all perfectly clear to them how WTC 7 collapsed so neatly in 5.6 seconds in exactly the manner of a controlled demolition through fire alone, then I would be taking John Bursill's $100,000 and Arjay's $20,000 off them faster than you could blink twice.

----

Pericles, perhaps you could give an example of an article on http://ae911truth.org which you believe to be satire and which "bears all the obvious hallmarks of being pure invention, helped along by a massive dose of imagination" similar to those articles you refer to on http://www.theonion.com and explain why?

Really, Arjay?

>>John Bursill the Aust representitive of aetruth.org is offering a $100,000.00 bet for CJ Morgan ,Pericles or other detractors to disprove the science,physics & maths.<<

Does he know about this?

I guess it might be just a figment of your imagination. Like the aetruth.org address that doesn't exist.

I would be very interested to hear the conditions of this bet. A search for "John Bursill" on Google doesn't provide any clues to the existence of the bet, or its Ts & Cs.

And of course, as I have asked a couple of times before, what is required to win your own imaginary "bet". So far you have neglected to supply any details as to who will determine the level of proof required.

I would not like to get into a situation where, say, I was asked to provide "proof" of evolution, only to find the answers would be judged by Dan S de Merengue. If you see what I mean.

I do love the way you deliberately misrepresent my posts, and then quiz me on your misinterpretation, daggett. You will undoubtedly make a great politician, if you were ever to get elected. You are a natural obfuscator. And I mean that as a compliment.

>>Pericles, perhaps you could give an example of an article on http://ae911truth.org which you believe to be satire<<

It is The Onion that is satirical, daggett.

http://www.theonion.com/

My questions on the web site in question were spelt out, quite clearly.

"Does the situation it describes sound remotely feasible? Is there sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances? Does the story, in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief?

I was using the satirical magazine as an analogy, do you see? Not a simile.

Is it just me getting the impression you are both rather scraping the bottom of the barrel here?

Pericles asks, again:

"Does the situation it describes sound remotely feasible? Is there sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances? Does the story, in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief?"

Of course, my answers are: Yes, Yes and Yes!

What is not "remotely feasible", lacks "sufficient hard fact, as opposed to speculative coincidences or imagined potential circumstances", and does not "in any way, shape or form, hang together without the necessity to suspend disbelief" is the official explanation of the WTC tower 'collapses'.

The fact remains that you have refused my repeated request to attempt to show how even one document on http://ae911truth.org is wrong as they would surely have to be if the case you are putting here is true.

Yes, daggett.

But did you understand the bit about The Onion?

It still worries me that you might think it is factual.

Incidentally, while you may answer "Yes, Yes and Yes!", capital letters and exclamation mark and all, you are in a very, very substantial minority.

I wonder why that might be?