Pericles,John Bursill emailed me recently and he offered a bet of $100,000.00 to detractor,guess what,the detractor backed out.I sure John would accommoadate the great Pericles and so will I.

Now stop this weasel business Pericles and start disproving the physics of David Chandler.ie freefall.

That's really interesting, Arjay.

>>Pericles,John Bursill emailed me recently and he offered a bet of $100,000.00 to detractor,guess what,the detractor backed out.I sure John would accommoadate the great Pericles and so will I.<<

Do you have the email handy?

Ask John to put his $100,000 challenge up on one of the 911 blogs, will you. Making it clear that it is open to all, and that he is prepared allow me to publicise the offer in the national press. Then repeat your own contribution, next to it, with the same conditions.

At which point I might take you seriously.

Then we would be able to get down to brass tacks.

Whom do you suggest should determine the validity of the evidence?

Please don't offer daggett.

Pericles wrote, "It still worries me that you might think it is factual."

Of course, I understand that the Onion is not factual. What did I ever write that gave you the impression that I did?

---

Pericles asked (earlier), "But did you understand the bit about The Onion?"

Either:

A. You are claiming that http://ae911truth.org is in some way like http://www.theonion.com or

B. You are not;

You have denied that you consider http://ae911truth.org to be satirical, but have not explained in what other way you consider it similar to http://www.theonion.com so I fail to see the relevance of http://www.theonion.com to this discussion.

I am not here to talk in riddles, Pericles.

Once again: Are you or aren't you going to explain what on http://ae911truth.org caused you to pronounce that site to be fallacious?

Always pleased to clarify, daggett.

>>You have denied that you consider http://ae911truth.org to be satirical, but have not explained in what other way you consider it similar to http://www.theonion.com so I fail to see the relevance of http://www.theonion.com to this discussion. I am not here to talk in riddles, Pericles. Once again: Are you or aren't you going to explain what on http://ae911truth.org caused you to pronounce that site to be fallacious?<<

Of course. Let me try again.

You and I start from entirely different premises, which creates a different view of reality.

You see what some blogger somewhere sees as an anomaly in the 9/11 story, and build upwards from there, to a point where you declare that it must have been an inside job, involving tonnes of explosives carefully placed and precisely detonated.

I read the story about how government agents reporting to the Bush family have deliberately killed thousands of their fellow citizens, with no convincing motive, with an implausible methodology, and full of mind-blowing coincidences, and park it in the "conspiracy-nut" basket.

That's the link with The Onion, you see. They write a totally ridiculous story, often quoting and referring to real people, that sounds plausible only if you take it at its face value.

Here's one I particularly enjoyed.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/google_responds_to_privacy

For you, the story gains momentum from the point where - as we all know - Google is able to view enormous amounts of personal information.

I start from the point that there isn't the remotest possibility that Google would apologize along these lines.

You see what I mean?

So, to repeat myself, from an earlier post:

"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."

Hope this helps.

As I wrote, "I am not here to talk in riddles, Pericles."

If you are not going to provide even one specific example of material from http://ae911truth.org which you claim to be fallacious, then why won't you say so?

I have said so, daggett, on a number of occasions.

>>If you are not going to provide even one specific example of material from http://ae911truth.org which you claim to be fallacious, then why won't you say so?<<

For the same reasons that I don't check on the "facts" behind the stories in The Onion.

That way lies madness.