I somehow suspect that if I was making such a complete idiot of myself and if no one was reading this discussion, Paul.L would have departed a long time ago.

Even if it is true, that no-one is reading this discussion, as Paul.L claims, it does, in my view constitute an important record, if a badly spoilt one.

As at least one user has complained that this thread has been largely turned "into a vaudeville show with reams of stupefying swill ...", then I think it makes sense for others to try to salvage the worthwhile parts of this discussion and attempt to omit the stupefying swill.

You are welcome to attempt to do the same, Paul.L, that is, unless you don't believe that there is any stupefying swill in this discussion in it.

---

FG, thanks for the timeline.

It's interesting, but I don't see how the financial collapse was contrived. A lot of the wealthy lost money (at least for a while). I think it started when desperately poor people, unable to pay their mortgages, just stopped doing so. No great manipulation there I would have thought.

What I objected to, as did most US citizens, is the way the Wall Street gamblers and criminals blackmailed the US legislators into passing the bailout the US$700billion after it had been rejected the first time round.

George W Bush made a thinly veiled threat that martial law would result.

It is worth reading what people like Naomi Klein ( http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/11/real-change-depends-stopping-bailout-profiteers) and Michael Moore (http://www.michaelmoore.com/) have to say about all this.

Michael Moore said that they should let the stupid paper economy collapse in a heap and put the $700billion towards rebuilding the real economy.

I agree.

Dagget,

you say >> "I somehow suspect that if I was making such a complete idiot of myself and if no one was reading this discussion, Paul.L would have departed a long time ago."

You just keep getting it wrong. It might be an idea to keep your half baked assumptions to yourself.

I do this becuase I enjoy forming an argument, and debating people. I don't visit conservative websites to chat with other people who have views similar to mine. I don't look for pats on the head, and I sure as hell am not so arrogant as to suggest that anyone should be listening to me for advice or edification. Get over yourself.

*I don't look for pats on the head, and I sure as hell am not so arrogant as to suggest that anyone should be listening to me for advice or edification. Get over yourself.*

You've summed it up very well Paul. Daggett seems to be well known
on OLO for his delusions of grandeur. I just don't have your
patience.

Paul.L,

I have decided, for the time, being to not spent further hours of my days composing responses to such obviously stupid statements as:

"What? The fast removal of debris is evidence that the buildings were demolished? Really?"

"Molly the dog was running as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Should we take her seriously as well?"

"How many inquiries do you people want? It wouldn't matter what an inquiry found, to the conspiracy nuts. If the new inquiry found that it happened exactly as 9/11 commission and NIST has suggested, they would just squeal 'whitewash' all over again."

"The mere fact that you no longer use the 'they looked like controlled demolitions' is evidence enough."

"Dagget has finally agreed that the building WTC1 and 2 did not look like controlled demolitions."

... and a lot more statements which are equally stupid, if less obviously so.

If I find more time, I would prefer to spend it writing elsewhere (http://candobetter.org/node/905) succinct deconstructions of the nonsense written by you and similar nonsense, for the benefit of others.

If you therefore think that you are entitled to crow about your supposed intellectual triumph and offer me gratuitous advice about how to get along better in life, then be my guest.

BTW, Paul.L, do you still insist that you can't see evidence of molten steel in http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D ?

I note that Yabby has seen fit to peddle the lie on another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2246&page=0#49885) that I am excusing Osama bin Laden on this thread. ("... so after Daggett fails to convince anyone that Osama is an angel ...")

If he had bothered to read properly what I had written, he would know that that is a lie. I had merely pointed out that there is no evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 as attested to even by the FBI.

Naturally, Yabby didn't include any direct quote of mine to back up his filthy libel.

This is the sort of smear that one should come to expect from such a two-faced sociopathic hypocrite, when he is backed into a corner created as a result of his own self-contradiction.

Corners Daggett? Hehe, you are as silly as Nicky :)

I've never seen one yet.

One of the many videos that came out after Afgahnistan
was overthrown, was a video of Osama explaining to
some Mullahs, how it happened and was planned etc.
All interesting stuff, for anyone to see.

But stick to your whacko beliefs, it keeps you occupied
and some of us amused, when we read your garbage
occasionally for a bit of a chuckle.