E Howard Hunt,an ex CIA agent died in 2007 and left his son Saint John Hunt, a video and audio accusing Lyndon Baines Johnson of plotting the murder of JFK.

He also names Cord Meyer with whom JFK had an affair with wife, as being one of the main protagonists along with David Morales and Bill Harvey. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpQHfQKonaE

Does anyone remember this being in the media back then? It should have been on every front page.

Oooh look - Santa's brought a new conspiracy theory to Arjay for Xmas!

Actually, it's not new at all.

Try and have a nice day tomorrow, old chap.

Well I have to admit it, I have known for a long time.
Scrooge Mcduck was from the CIA.
All that swimming in the money bin was to teach future Wall street traders greed was good.

Belly,I was surprised at his confessions and am quite amazed that this was not big news at the time.

It does demonstrate a corruption from that era including LBJ and Nixon to be amazing ,yet we see no enquiries or real media interest.
There is no way that Lee Harvey Oswald count have been in 3 different places at once.It is also very unlikely that he even pulled the trigger.

Belly
Did you know that the CIA actually stands for Conspiracies Incorporated America.
I think it's part of the Disney corporations 'black ops'
I read that all the fluffy characters in Disney land are actually operatives with special ray guns that suck peoples intelligent thought to power Disney world. I mean, all the houses in their 'American village estate' there are linked by an Apple 'comunictions' (hmm?) network .
________________________

CJ

I had one once but the batteries ran out and I couldn't buy new ones.
It ran around in circles screaming "it's a plot, we're all gonna die",
Annoyed the crap out of my parents.
____________________________

I too am surprised arjay, how come no one has worked out the Beagle boys are actually Democrats?
Trying to get their hands on poor old wall street dollars.
LBJ may well have been trained in Disney land

Was LBJ cremated or buried? Seems this is of vital importance in case this rumour is true.

I once had a cartoon dog wearing dark glasses try to sell me a grassy knoll.

Is that relevant?

CJ morgan.Old King Knoll was not a merry old soul.We now have had many generations who have not confronted the corruption and face our day of reckoning.It is now all pervasive,and like the last days of the Roman Empire,we are all in denial.

Next year will see the demise of the US $ and now we learn that our debt per capita will surpass the US.This means that our living standards will fall dramatically.Thanks to Kevin Rudd and the usual socialists apparachicks, we are in debt worse than the yanks.Rudd has sold us out.

Arjay old mate.
You now are on record my record, that the American dollar will collapse this coming year
That Rudd is a socialist?
And that we will be in more debt than America this year too.
Now you add substance to my claim Disney land was a training ground for the American establishment.
I have long suspected Harold Holt is alive under Goofys head gear.
And have few doubts Mr smoking is good for you Minchin is in fact a Disney prop.
Surely you too have given hours of though to this, just how did Donald Ducks nephews come into being?

Thanks Arjay, I'd completely forgotten about this one. As conspiracy theories go, it has a lot less going for it than most, thanks to the fact that both the protagonists here - E.Howard and St John - couldn't lie straight in bed.

E Howard was a sad-sack failure all his life - think Bay of Pigs, Watergate etc. His son was just a flake, with a twenty-year meth addiction (do you know what that stuff does to your brain, after twenty years? I'm amazed he can talk) and ten years as a dealer.

As reliable witnesses go, they don't exactly reek credibility.

But of course, in conspiracy-land that's actually an advantage, because you can then cry "cover-up, cover-up" when no-one takes them seriously.

The most even-handed account was put together by Rolling Stone Magazine.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt

But the most amusement comes from the people who analyzed the deeper meaning of E Howard's ramblings... by playing them backwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUecqrHoj3I&NR=1

Seriously, if you only watch one conspiracy video on YouTube this year, make it this one.

It's a doozy.

Dear Arjay,

If you're really interested in what
Edward Howard Hunt has to say why
not read his memoir?:

"American Spy: My Secret History
in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond,"
published in 2007.

Then you can judge for yourself the
man's credibility.

Thanks, Arjay.

I haven't yet had a chance to look at the Video.

Of course, anyone[1] who accepts the Official account of the JFK assassination is either a fool or a government/corporate shill.

However, what you write seems to somewhat contradict what is in the article "LBJ: 'They're going to get us all. It's a plot. It's a plot. It's going to get us all.'" of 30 Oct 09 at http://www.911blogger.com/node/21744 :

'What [Brigadier General Godfrey McHugh] claimed to have witnessed next was shocking. "I walked in the toilet, in the powder room, [of Air Force One] and there he was hiding, with the curtain closed," McHugh recalled. He claimed that LBJ was crying, "They're going to get us all. It's a plot. It's a plot. It's going to get us all.'" According to the General, Johnson "was hysterical, sitting down on the john there alone in this thing."'

If that account is true, then LBJ would almost certainly not have been part of the conspiracy to murder JFK.

His subsequent record as President of the United States should then largely be understand as the actions of a man who did not want to fall foul of the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned against and suffer the same fate as LBJ.

Russ Baker's Book "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America" proposes the same hypothesis for a number of other Presidents including President Obama. (For some more information, see http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2009/11/14/week-in-review-john-perkins-russ-baker-on-secret-empires/)


---

Footnotes

1. That includes Phillip Adams. See passing reference, where he makes it clear that he accepts that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin in "Yet another power couple" at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25918365-5013491,00.html)

Thanks for the ref daggett.The Murder of Kennedy was clearly intended as a warning to all future Presidents to tow the line.Perhaps LBJ was honest initially but the threat of death does compromise a lot of integrity.

Kennedy wanted to end the Vietnam war but LBJ expanded it.If your evidence is sound then it seems he was an unwilling participant in many of the policies he implemented.It could well have been a red herring intended to deflect attention away from the true perpetrators.They still won't hold a proper investigation JFK's death.

Notice that pericles is the doggit trail.He's been hounding me for months in a lame attempts of ad hominem. I've issued a challenge to pericles.He informs me that he's seen the evidence on http://ae911truth.org/ and it is all lies.So pericles should now post on OLO what exactly the lies are item by item.I'd suggest he start with free fall speeds and acceleration by Prof David Chandler.

Sorry I typed 'LBJ' above in one spot where I meant 'JFK'. I think most would worked out that it was a mistake.

---

I suggest Pericles (and, perhaps, Christopher) take a look at the 4'36" video "Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" by David Chandler and others at http://www.911blogger.com/node/22236 and explain to the rest of us what is wrong with it.

If he cannot, then he should explain how he thinks that Al Qaeda was able to gain the access to the North Tower necessary to plant those cutter charges.

Yeh, I am aware I should not be sarcastic, that it is the lowest form of humor.
And given my recent dummy spit it is clear I have one set of rules for myself and another for some.
Or is it?
I took the argee bargee in print, it was the reporting that got to me.
I can not ever stop saying it like I believe it is.
I truly , sorry really, think my Disney land comments are closer to the truth than Ajay's and dagerts theory's.
America is not clean, people from that country manipulate the truth, tell me however one single country that does not.
Tell me please one middle eastern state you can trust, one that lies are not used as much as bullets and for the same reasons, as weapons.
I still have concerns at the character of Donald Duck, who was the father of those kids, were they safe away with Donald in those wood Chuck camps?

You don't get it, do you Arjay.

>>I've issued a challenge to pericles.He informs me that he's seen the evidence<<

No, I haven't seen any evidence at all.

Yes, I have looked through the web site you offered.

But that isn't evidence.

That is pure imagination, replete with wild-eyed theories that involve literally hundreds of people, performing tasks that would have been impossible to keep secret at the time, and even less so in subsequent years.

Let's face it, if the story contained even the slightest vestige of truth, its telling would make any eyewitness richer than Croesus, in an instant. The phrase "rich, beyond the dreams of avarice" would come true in front of your eyes. On Oprah.

Considering how many conspirators there must have been to pull off the stunt you imagine, this absence alone disqualifies the theory.

>>Notice that pericles is the doggit trail.He's been hounding me for months in a lame attempts of ad hominem<<

The only hint of "ad hominem", Arjay, is contained in my allusions to your gullibility, made in an attempt to get you to answer just one question.

In your theory, how many people were involved in the actual field operation to destroy the Towers, what did each of them they do, and how was it managed?

Just saying "CIA conspirators planted many tons of explosives at key points" is insufficient, and shows how ignorant you are of the logistics involved.

How many tons? Where were the key points? How did they place them? When did they place them? How were the explosions co-ordinated? What triggers were used?

And how come no-one noticed?

As I suggested before, just start writing down the activities needed. That should bring it home to you.

Ah, daggett, thanks for dropping by.

>>[Pericles] should explain how he thinks that Al Qaeda was able to gain the access to the North Tower necessary to plant those cutter charges.<<

That assumes the building was demolished by internally-placed charges. Since there is no evidence of this, there is little point in further, even wilder, speculation.

Pericles if you studied http://www.aetruth.org/ you would have seen a peer reviewed study led by Prof Neils Harrit and 8 other international scientists that show conclusive proof of the presence of nano-thermite known only to the US military at that time.

How do you explain the micro spheres of iron that only can be created by temps more than twice the optimum temps produced by jet fuel.Did Al Quaeda have several blast furnances in the buildings? We have photographic proof of tonnes of molten steel,flowing both out of the buildings and weeks later underground.Photographic proof on this site and witnesses saying it flowed like lava.How is this possible?

With nano technology you can mix the atoms of iron oxide fe2 03 and aluminium perfectly so the that the reaction is both instantaneous
and very explosive.It acts both as an explosive and an oxy torch that cuts metal like a knife through butter.

It burned for weeks later even though they poured millions of litres of water on it.Why? Well nano thermite has it's own oxygen supply and will burn very well under water.

If you view the south tower orated by David Chandler you will see the top third pitch at 22 deg.This according to NIST is the pile driver that collapsed the rest of the building.It should have continued on it's course and fallen over,but self destructed even before it's so called pile driver qualities could be actuated.It must have been divine intervention on the laws on physics.So we have three impossibilities.Self destruction, a force out of alignment to complete it's said task and freefall energies unimpeded by the serious structures below.

We have just taken the first step in our investigation pericles.

Hi James.

Yawn.

Arjay's much more fun :)

Thanks to Pericles for the 'Rolling Stone' link. A good read... not much more to be said on this particular fantasy, methinks.

Next conspiracy, Arjay?

Arjay,

I checked the video.

I think I need to refamiliarise myself with the events surrounding the assassination of JFK so I better understand the context and the personalities that the confession relates to. A copy of Oliver Stone's JFK, which I saw 17 or 18 years ago would be one way of accomplishing this, but it is not available in my video store.

It may still be possible that LBJ could have been part of the conspiracy and then threatened anyway after the murder, just to make sure that he was truly maleable and compliant.

My gut feeling is that he was not, but I need to find out more.

I mean to get a copy of "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." by James W. Douglass although the title suggest that it may not focus that much on the murder itself.

---

I see Pericles is well versed in Rule 14 of "25 rules of Disinformation":

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, ... (see http://911blogger.com/node/20684)

In truth, I had written a longer response, but lost it when my text editor strangely froze.

Firstly, I am still waiting for Pericles to tell us all what is wrong with the 4'36" video "Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" at http://www.911blogger.com/node/22236

Pericles would have us believe that the minute anyone with knowledge of the conspiracy stepped forward, they would be instantly propelled to mega-fame and mega-fortune.

In reality, a good indication of how they are likely to be treated can gauged from how whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds have been ignored as have a large number of witnesses whose testimony in contradiction with the Official account of 9/11. This includes Scott Forbes, whose testimony of power-downs and visits to the South Tower by mysterious people with toolboxes in overalls in the days leading up to 9/11.

If a proper inquiry had been set up, in which the investigators demonstrated a real resolve to seek the truth no matter who it implicated and more people with stories about unusual events around the WTC, prior to 9/11 failed to step forward, then Pericles might have a point.

Even then, anyone with inside knowledge of the conspiracy would certainly need enormous courage and a huge change of heart to break his/her silence and turn on those he/she worked with to murder almost 3,000 US residents.

Let's not forget how Barry Jennings who worked in WTC 7, who gave accounts in contradiction with the official account, and expressed fears for his life and of losing his job, mysteriously died in August 2008.

One group who worked in the Towers who had the necessary access to the structural columns were the 83 employees of the Ace Elevator Company who worked supposedly overhauling the Twin Tower lifts in the 9 months prior to 9/11 (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ace_elevator_1):

'During the 9/11 catastrophe, around 200 people die in the WTC's elevators without getting help from elevator mechanics, according to an in-depth study later performed by USA Today. Some of the victims are burned by the initial explosion, some die as the elevator cars ...(tobecontinued)

I think that says it all, daggett.

>>I think I need to refamiliarise myself with the events surrounding the assassination of JFK so I better understand the context and the personalities that the confession relates to. A copy of Oliver Stone's JFK, which I saw 17 or 18 years ago would be one way of accomplishing this<<

When in need of facts to support your conspiracy theories, go straight to the video store and take out a movie.

Where else would you find reality, if not in an Oliver Stone production?

And this accusation won't stick, I'm afraid.

>>Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely<<

I am aware that you haven't a hope in hell of "solving the crime completely", mainly because it exists only in your imagination.

I'm simply asking for some background information, to inform us a little more about the logistics that would be required to underpin your madcap ideas.

For example, what quantity of explosives would be required to achieve the result you postulate? 1 pound? 1 ton? 100 tons? In what form would they be planted - little boxes? Big boxes? Big boxes with wires coming out of them?

That sort of thing.

Just the background. Just some evidence that your being vague about the process doesn't indicate that it is pure invention.

Pointing out that random puffs of smoke "prove" that demolition explosives were used, should be the start of a theory, not its conclusion.

And this is straight from the conspiracy handbook.

>>Barry Jennings who worked in WTC 7... mysteriously died in August 2008<<

Ah, the essential "mysterious death". Staple fare in any conspiracy.

Oh, and this old chestnut...

>>whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds have been ignored<<

Therefore, by definition, she must be credible. Why else would she be ignored?

Admit it, guys. Your lives would be completely empty without these fictions to sustain, wouldn't they?

But do keep it coming. I have plenty more incredulity that I'm dying to use.

Another conspiracy!

>>In truth, I had written a longer response, but lost it when my text editor strangely froze.<<

"strangely froze", eh?

That's very suspicious.

<sarcasm>

Even your computer is conspiring to silence you, daggett. It must have been tampered with by the CIA - who else would go to such lengths to keep your insights from the world?

After all, they'd be the only ones with the resources to bribe Bill Gates to introduce the Windows bug that attacked your system to prevent you from informing us all what's really happening, wouldn't they?

"strangely froze"

That strikes a chill into the heart of anyone who, like you, is a dedicated seeker-of-truth.

If "They" can cause your text editor to freeze at the critical moment - when the truth is on the verge of being revealed to the world - what hope is there for humanity?

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

</sarcasm>

(continuedfromabove)... plummet when their cables are severed, and some are stuck and perish in the collapse. USA Today will say it "could not locate any professional rescues of people stuck in elevators. The Fire Department of New York and the Port Authority also could not cite successful rescues." After the North Tower is hit, most of the WTC's 83 elevator mechanics gather in the lobby of the South Tower, but when the second plane hits, they evacuate. In contrast, a passing elevator mechanic from another company runs into the WTC and dies trying to free trapped passengers. USA Today will comment: "When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, Otis Elevator's mechanics led the rescue of 500 people trapped in elevators. Some mechanics were dropped onto the roofs of the Twin Towers by helicopter. Others, carrying 50-pound oxygen tanks on their backs, climbed through smoke to machine rooms high in the towers. On Sept. 11, the elevator mechanics?many of the same men involved in the rescues in 1993?left the buildings after the second jet struck, nearly an hour before the first building collapsed." Although ACE Elevator, the local company which won the WTC contract from Otis in 1994, will say it was acting in accordance with procedure, USA Today will note: "The departure of elevator mechanics from a disaster site is unusual. The industry takes pride in rescues. In the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, elevator mechanics worked closely with the firefighters making rescues." Robert Caporale, editor of Elevator World will say, "Nobody knows the insides of a high-rise like an elevator mechanic. They act as guides for firefighters, in addition to working on elevators." The Port Authority will also say that their departure was in conflict with the emergency plan. "There was no situation in which the mechanics were advised or instructed to leave on their own."' [USA TODAY, 12/19/2001; USA TODAY, 9/4/2002]' (http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ace_elevator_1)

---

Of course I should have known to expect Pericles to take a cheap shot at my mention of the Movie, "JFK". I happen to think that watching a well-made historical movie is ...(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)... a good way to refamiliarise oneself with the facts about that event. Oliver Stone happens to be very good at making accurate historical dramas as was, also, BTW "Alexander" of 2004.

I wasn't arguing for or against the JFK conspiracy theory, because it's an obvious fact that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have murdered JFK in the way it is claimed that he did. If you want to claim otherwise, as I said, you are either a fool or a corporate/government shill. By all means go ahead and try to prove that LHO performed all those remarkable feats attributed to him, then conveniently got murdered before he could testify, if you wish. Also, please explain why you think Oswald shouted out "I'm a patsy!" as he was being arrested.

---

If Pericles wants us to accept that he believes those violent ejections of debris out of the corner of the 'collapsing' North Tower are 'random puffs of smoke' then we would have to expect us to believe that he has not properly looked at the video (or indeed any videos oft he WTC 'collapses').

Pericles, those 'puffs of smoke' are not random, because the point at which they were observed happened to be the point at which the (two) corner 16" box columns of the tower were briefly observed to have been severed above the cloud of debris, before they began free fall descent.

The second set of 'puffs of smoke' discussed in the DVD were also not random, because, as David Chandler explained, they coincided exactly with the commencement of free-fall by those severed and still-standing box columns.

When you walk around the city, Pericles and look up at the tall buildings around you, do you happen to see similar 'random puffs of smoke' being ejected from the corners of those buildings all the time (not to mention the other massive billowing violent clouds of debris) but somehow leaving all those buildings intact?

Because unless what we observed in those videos is a common occurrence that happens all the time, every day of the year, then they (...tobecontinued)

Dagett we are wasting our time on Pericles since he has the intelligence to understand but has other agendas.Most likely monetary gain.

CJ Morgan just has no scientific nous.He will mouth whatever is fed to him.You will notice that that neither of them have addressed any of the evidence we have produced.Just lame ad hominem.

I have bigger fish to fry than waste my time with the mindless banter of these two.Their intent is nothing more than vacuous
distraction to deflect debate from the real issues.

Well I kind of like having conspiracy theorists about. It's not only entertaining at times - I mean some of it is just great; really imaginative paranoia - but I like it that some amongst us are interested enough to bother picking through all the details of this and that. Sort of like institutional watch dogs. I think it would be a more troubling situation for us all if nobody cared what people who have power and influence were doing. I don't for a minute think that any government or major organization reveals all to the public and I can understand why that wouldn't be a good idea, but I also think they get up to a lot of pranks that they shouldn't. For those who can be bothered being vigilant - keep it up. The rest of us not only get a good laugh, but maybe our freedoms are kept a little safer too.

While I agree we get a very good laugh out of it hence arjays views on those who oppose his views, it hides the truth.
Some conspiracy's indeed do hide the truth.
In ww2 Germans sunk a passenger liner within hours of the start of the war, then blamed Britain, saying it was them who tried to bring America into the war by doing it.
And I just bet some of these weird lies start in the middle east, not unusual from that part of the world.
It is however, truly, hugely funny, that our two conspiracy theorists are even saying those who disagree, are conspirators?
Pericles says arjay, has an interest in money not truth.
Now that is funny.

(continuedfromabove)... cannot be described as 'random'. Those 'puffs of smoke' as you describe are not 'random', rather they are the cause of these effects:

1. the two 14" corner box columns above that point being severed and removed.

2. the same corner box columns being severed further down about two seconds later and then having descended at free fall speed.

As for your demands that I give detailed logistical explanation of how much explosives had to have been planted, and where and how, I am not going to provide that for you here. This forum is not "9/11 for Dummies" (or should I say not an "Idiot's Guide"?).

It's blindingly obvious that what has been recorded in those videos cannot possibly be explained away as simply the result of the residual damage from the impact of Flight 11, the dwindling fires from the aviation fuel and the gravitational potential energy within the North Tower. (See also http://candobetter.org/node/1743)

---

Speaking of "get[ting] a very good laugh", I would be interested if Belly could tell us more of that incident where the Germans "sunk a passenger liner within hours of the start of the [Second World W]ar, then blamed Britain."

What was the story, Belly?

They sank the passenger ship themselves and then accused the British of sinking it and trying to blame them? Or did they accuse the British of deliberately letting them sink the ship?

Anyhow, in 1915 during the FIRST World War, the British and Americans deliberately allowed the passenger ship, the RMS Lusitania to sail slowly into waters off Ireland where German U-boats were expected to be lurking and sure enough it was sunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#Last_voyage_and_sinking) and it was used as the principle propaganda weapon to get a reluctant American public to support that country entering the war.

---

Arjay, I think it is important to show that the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement can withstand all challenges in fair and open online debates such as this. I have no illusions that we can hope to get Pericles or Christopher to admit that they are wrong.

Goodonya Daggert, thanks for thinking I got ww1 mixed up with ww2 and Lusitania.
Truth is only yesterday, sure others would have seen it, the story was on history channel.
U boat fired two torpedo's and sank it just hours into ww2.
Thought you would know, after all you seem to have facts no others have.
Do you bloke think hearted insults are an answer to questions?
You and arjay can play in this mud hole as long as you like but it is still nothing more than Disney land stuff, untrue but entertaining.

The fact still remains Belly that you,Pericles,CJ Morgan have not even attempted to disprove via logical debate any of the evidence presented.It wrong because it is wrong.What sort of twisted logic is that?

Begin disproving the freefall speeds of gravity.WTC 7 for 3 sec,came down at an acceleration of 9.7m per sec sq,within 100th of freefall in a vacuum.Now we can do this with basic yr 10 maths/physics.Would Pericles like to open the batting?

Here Arjay,

This site presents some info that opposes theories about free fall and so on:

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

There's a lot of information behind a lot of the side links too.

My basic question about conspiracy theories re: 9/11, is why theories about this event always accuse the US Government of doing it. Why couldn't the same source/power/people (whatever) who organized the planes also have organized the (supposed but it seems now, non existent) explosives in the buildings.

If there is no enemy of the US who wants to harm US citizens more than it's own government does, and the government wanted citizens to think they were under attack - why not just lob a missile from a submarine or something and blow up something more convenient.

Also, why weren't explosives going off in the Pentagon ? - since if explosives were planted it wouldn't matter if the plane didn't hit.

Arjay you ask a question but do you truly think it deserves an answer?
Mate reality is not whispering in your ear, it screams for recognition.
Can it be you truely think America needed to kill its own just to get bogged down in Iraq?
Why if its own peoples life meant so little did it not truly, fully go to war?
Why has it not used the big bomb?
Why has it not taken the stick to the legs of leaders in Iran and North Korea?
Give me arjay your reasons America killed so many, tell me why one plane never made t to its target.
And know, truly know, its not just in the middle east lies and miss information are used as weapons.
Most conspiracy's are lies, used to confuse and defuse the real events, this certainly is one of those lies.

I think PynchMe should contemplate his own words,"... maybe our freedoms are kept a little safer too."

If it had been left to the likes of Pericles, Christopher and Belly who uncritically peddle the lies of the US and Australian Governments about 9/11 and the whole "war on terror", there would almost certainly have been further false flag terrorist attacks on the scale of of 9/11 well before now.

Arjay and I are accused of paranoia, but how is their belief in a global conspiracy centred in Afghanistan, of which terrorist cells in almost every country in the world are itching to inflict more large-scale murder and destruction on we infidels, not paranoid?

How was it not paranoid for then Prime Minister John Howard to have placed Sydney Business District effectively under martial law in 2007 during the time of the APEC summit at a cost to Australian taxpayers of $250 million, based on those same beliefs?

---

In regard to the link to that debunking site, Pynchme:

In fact, it is acknowledged by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that the time of the 'collapses' was 14-16 seconds, which is slower than free-fall speed, which would have been just under 10 seconds (and BTW, even the 9/11 Commission Report mistakenly puts the figure as 10 seconds.).

That remains an astonishingly small amount of time for each of host towers to have collapsed completely through the force of gravity alone whilst completely dismembering all the structural strength in the core columns and on the perimeter.

In fact, many controlled demolitions occur at accelerations somewhat less than free-fall speed, not that the twin tower 'collapses' were classic controlled demolotions.

However the 'collapse' of WTC 7 clearly was a classic controlled demolition.

During the 'collapse' an initial 2.25 seconds of free-fall was observed during which WTC 7 fell 8 stories.

That can only possibly be explained by the removal, within that 2.25 second interval of all the structural strength in those 8 floors by explosives.

A sentence in my previous post mistakenly had the word 'host', where I meant 'those'. It should have read:

"That remains an astonishingly small amount of time for each of host towers to have collapsed completely through the force of gravity alone whilst completely dismembering all the structural strength in the core columns and on the perimeter."

---

PynchMe, if you are interested in learning the truth and not just looking for apparent 'facts' which reinforce your pre-existing beliefs, then I suggest that you look at these videos:

"WTC7 in Freefall" at http://911blogger.com/node/17685
"'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie" at http://911blogger.com/node/18771
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18951
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18969

Note how David Chandler succeeded in having NIST (the US National Institute of Technology and Standards) abandon its previous pretence that no free fall had occurred during the 'collapse' of WTC 7, which it had previously claimed to have been impossible in the face of clear video evidence that it had occurred.

---

Belly, I never explicitly accused you of having mixed up World War 1 with World War 2, even thought it looked to me as if you had. Anyway, if you want to incite others to laugh at the (alternative) 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" on this forum (as opposed to the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists with their bizarre belief in an all-powerful world wide terrorist conspiracy controlled from caves in Afghanistan) then don't feel too offended if we respond to you in a similar way.

Now could you perhaps answer my questions and tell us more about the incident you have described, or,perhaps, tell us the name of the History Channel show you watched, we might be able to work out what the incident you described was.

Daggert the program was either about convoys in the second world war or the submarine war.
A member of the U boats crew was interviewed he at that time, said he was ashamed of what they had done.
But they had been ordered to say nothing about it, and Germany did blame Briton.
Much the same thing happened after the Lusitania was sunk, even today conspiracy theorist want to prove it was carrying weapons or ammunition.
Again I know people like you and arjay actually do more to cover the real truth that anything.
Now it is best I do not further contribute to a thread I believe is pure fantasy.

daggett: Thank for the links but seen the vids before; worn the tee and I think you need to read that linked site more thoroughly. People with much greater scientific and engineering expertise than you, me and the theorists making those vids disagree with the controlled demolition thing.

Btw you didn't answer my questions.

Btw: a thought - how do you (or we) know that the conspiracy theorists are not part of a conspiracy to undermine the Western public's confidence in their governments and in democracy?

Mebbe you're all working for the Chinese government or um ... some other regime somewhere that is aiming to supercede the US as a world power.... Dr. Claw style.

That's why I ask: how come the US/Western democracies always gets blamed? There is no shortage of people and organizations with evil intent about.

Btw I liked the way that Belly stated it, basically - why-t-f would the US need to kill a whole lot of citizens just to get into a mess in Iraq and elsewhere. It's stoopid. Illogical.

I like conspiracy theorists and theories as I said - but I think some of you need to stand back and apply the skills you're using more imaginatively - like think beyond ideas of finding evidence to justify distrust in current governments.

From evidence I've read from explosives experts who do building demolitions they indicate that to bring down A building like the nth tower and or building seven there are many things to consider. Particularly if the intention was to destroy evidence etc.
- the structural nature of the building
- where to put the explosives
- how much explosive not enough is as catastrophic as too much.
- Then the precise sequencing of the explosions.
- the different types of explosives. They don't just grab a box of c4
and stick them on the structural spots. each charge differs both in size and type of explosive substances. Some blow outward, some inward some create precise damage others are incendiary the list goes on.

My niece's hubby is one such explosives expert he recons that there would have had to have been tons of various shaped charges of several different types of explosives. All strategically placed he maintained the computer technology to do the damage to replicate the explosion would have been a bank of computers . He doubts that the explosive would have been placed over 6 month period without detection as some
some loads would have been sizable. If they had been wired then there would have been miles of wire to lay and hide without detection.
He maintains radio detonation in a building of that size and active electrical interference would have been perilous.

The literature dismisses the idea of radio controlled detonation for among other reasons,the risk of premature explosions, radio interference and discovery. Additionally the buildings were known to have had radio dead spots. Regular security sweeps of Building 7 would have detected the electronic detonation devices.

In conclusion: trucks of wires, trucks of explosives, varying degrees of size camouflaged(?). A small army of people to install, backup facilities, a truck of computer gear, interference a truck of radio detonators (1000's), security sweeps....it works on Hollywood Die Hard movies but reality? I am with Pericles here.

What hope does logic have, when faced with Arjay's total commitment to fantasies?

>>The fact still remains Belly that you,Pericles,CJ Morgan have not even attempted to disprove via logical debate any of the evidence presented.It wrong because it is wrong.What sort of twisted logic is that?<<

It is impossible, as you know, to prove a negative, which is what you continually ask others to do.

And the reality is, we don't need to.

Because even if you can convincingly knit together all the circumstantial evidence you have cobbled together, and arrive at a theory that "the building was demolished", it still fails the real-world test.

In the real world, as opposed to the world of make-believe in which you are immersed, real live actions are needed in order for an event to occur.

The story you have crocheted together would need the active connivance of a significant number of people. Not only that, they would have to have been driven by an explicit motive.

If you reduce the burden of proof to its basics - means, motive and opportunity - your theory fails on every single count.

You have failed to demonstrate the means by which the detonations occurred.

Instead, you have postulated that it might have been theoretically possible to destroy the building using explosives. Your "proof", every bit of it, is entirely circumstantial.

You also fail to determine a motive.

Who would benefit from the action, and how? The corollary to this is why would they use this particular means to achieve those ends?

As for opportunity, you have not even bothered to approach this aspect in your ramblings.

Probably for the simple reason that you cannot explain it without exposing the flimsiness of your theory.

So instead of wittering on about "freefall in a vacuum", Arjay, how about turning your attention to the basics.

Means. Motive. Opportunity.

If you can put something together on these three that is even remotely credible, it might be possible to pay attention to the rest of your pitch.

PynchMe, if we were to believe that article by people "with much greater scientific and engineering expertise than [me]" (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm) then we would have to believe that every steel-framed skyscraper in the world is effectively a massive bomb just waiting to collapse explosively to dust and debris, given the slightest jolt.

It also doesn't explain the observed 2.25 second period of free-fall of WTC 7 through 8 stories.

In any case, if all those images of the twin towers 'collapsing' are not images of those buildings being blown apart, then I would sure like to know what an explosion looks like.

Pericles, PynchMe and examinator have otherwise attempted to avoide addressing my point that the 'collapses' cannot possibly be explained without the use of explosives by demanding answers from me.

The motive for 9/11 was obvious and Pericles is being extremely dishonest in pretending not to know what it was.

It was to give the PNAC cabal then in control of the White House an excuse to launch wars that the US public would have otherwise opposed. Read for yourself:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." ("Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century" p51 at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (pdf 873K))

It is claimed that the wars have been disastrous for their interests, but that's only if we fail to understand what the true aims of those wars were.

They certainly had the means : hundreds of billions of dollars 'missing' from the Pentagon Budget before 9/11 and the opportunity: The 83 lift mechanics of Ace Elevator Company who were never investigated wh had easy access to most of the structural columns inside the towers for 9 months as just one example.

The fact that Securacom which looked after much of the security of the Twin Towers was linked to the Bush Family gives a clue how a good deal of suspicious activity in the months prior to 9/11 could have been covered up.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Anyhow, as I said, I don't have all the answers that are demanded of me.

That is why a proper inquiry should be held to find answers to those questions and a large number of other Questions about 9/11 that have not been answered by either the 9/11 Commission or the NIST 'investigations'.

The Manhatton Project,ie the development of the nuclear bomb involved 130,000 people.What you do is compartmentalise what groups within that organisation know.Only a few are allowed to see the big picture.You would only need a few to know the truth.

At the time of 911 the armed services were conducting exercises in parrallel with the reality.The same scenario happened with the London bombings.If you have a parrallel operation happening simulataneously,then you can blur the lines of reality and fiction and suddenly have honest people caught up in a treasonous plot.They have little chance of a sympathic ear but only an option to comply.Who is going to believe them? Months before 911 extensive elevator renovations were carried out in the towers.Marvin Bush, George's bother,owned that company.So we have the opportunity and also the motivation of going to war for profit and power.

Nano thermite can be painted on and is only volitile when critical temps are reached.So painters could apply this not knowing it's potential.People who work at these scenarios do so in think tanks and this is all they do.The USA spend $75 billlion pa on security and that buys a lot of clever people.If they get scientists at the Hadley Centre to cook the books,so too can they perpetrate 911.

We warned the USA that the Japs were coming at the time of Pearl Harbour,but ignored us.LIHOP.Let it happen on purpose.911 was MIHOP.Made it happen on purpose.The scientific proof is here http://ae911truth.org/ I've met Richard Gage,Prof Steven Jones,Dr Frank Legge and others of scientific credibility.The forensic science unlike climate science,is either right or wrong.

Only the little secrets need be hidden,since the really big ones are hidden by our incredulity.

Correction.Marvin Bush owned the security company that hand the contract for the WTC,not the elevator company.

Here Arjay and Co:

The Bush bro Marvin didn't do anything re: being in charge of security *or elevators. This fella says that he hadn't worked for the company for more than a year anyway, but while there his job had been installing security cameras and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8hErn2UZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8hErn2UZU

daggett: <"...we would have to believe that every steel-framed skyscraper in the world is effectively a massive bomb just waiting to collapse explosively to dust and debris, given the slightest jolt...">

If they get a "slight jolt" like an airliner crashing into the building maybe they would fall down too.

I understand that the exterior of the towers was composed of aluminium plates or something - relatively light; which is all the stuff that can be seen fluttering away.

Pynchme the mosquito netting exterior structure was steel and extremely strong.Why did it take 6 yrs for an investigation to be done on WTC 7? It was not included in the original investigation.I did not know that WTC 7 existed until last yr.

You obiviously have not viewed all the evidence.Fire as never before or since has brought down steel/concrete high rise.Buildings have burnt for 17 hrs at much hotter temps and not collapsed.Fire compromises building non uniformly and past videos show buildings falling over but they are nearly all brick and timber.

The only way to bing abuilding down in it's own footprint is through perfectly timed sequenced explosives.As well as explosives they cut the steel with oxy torches.Nano thermite does both.It will cut through steel and explode without the big flashes and noise of C4.

The more you investigate the anomolies arise.Charlie Sheen has asked Obama for a new open investigation.58% if respondents of a questionaire on the Ron Paul site want a new investigation.Obama and Congress should do this now.Let's put all the conjecture to rest by having one,but they are running scared and refuse to answer the questions or even look at the peer reviewed paper of Prof Niels Harrit on nano-thermite.

Put an end to all the lies and have a real investigation.

Arjay: I've looked at all the info I could find on Prof Niels Harrit's thermite biz, including his interviews; pros and cons.

If there was thermite found (and there are arguments against the findings being anything remarkable) he says it would have taken tons of it to make an impact. He says if he'd had to cart it in; it would have taken pallets to move it. That's a huge quantity not only to be taken into each building; but placed as well.

Btw it doesn't cut through steel neatly; it makes a messy burn through metal. Arguments against thermite being used to cut the steel posts are that the cutting was done afterwards during the removal of debris (and the site had pics of that being done).

Anyway, let's assume it did happen: I'd be looking at the owner of the buildings and insurance claims and such. Surely the insurer would be most interested in initiating an independent inquiry anyway - which they are entitled to and equipped to launch.

Why is it that the government is believed to have set it up (if it happened) rather than the building owner/s or some foreign power or just plain terrorists.

Maybe the owner is a terrorist or sympathiser? Mebbe some anti-US ME faction owned the buildings ? Have any of those possibilities been explored ?

Btw I have some respect for Ron Paul; not that I'd necessarily agree with him (he's a bit too conservative on some issues for me; but I believe he's a person who does a decent job). If he is taking these matters seriously (what exactly is he saying?) I'd be interested to get his point of view. Just don't have time right now to chase it up.

Charlie Sheen - haha don't bother. He's a li'l terrorist himself :)

PynchMe,

Compared to all the energy in the enormous violent billowing cloud of debris that both towers became, the respective impact of each of the two planes were just 'slight jolts'.

As I pointed out that article at http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm is effectively arguing that the Twin Towers and every other skyscraper and are massive bombs that only needed a jolt, such as from a crashing airplane, and perhaps flames from residual fires from the remaining aviation fuel to trigger them. Read the conclusion to all his/her calculations:

"Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, ..."

Further along he adds:

"You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with."

There just might be a something in all of that if we were to assume that those buildings were built with only barely enough strength to hold them up. However, they had a massive amount of redundant structural strength and no account whatsoever is made of that in any of those calculations.

If that person "[has] much greater scientific and engineering expertise than [me]", then he is certainly using that expertise not to inform, but to confuse the issue.

You haven't answered my question, PynchMe:

"... if all those images of the twin towers 'collapsing' are not images of those buildings being blown apart, then I would sure like to know what an explosion looks like."

In any case, the impacts of the planes clearly did not trigger the 'collapses' of the two towers. Otherwise they would have collapsed immediately. As it was the damage caused by the impacts was fully absorbed.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

In regard to PynchMe's supposed rebuttal of Dr Niels Harritt, I would sure like to know the sources.

I could well imagine that it would take a number of pallets to move into each of the towers enough explosives to bring down the buildings.

So what?

Is he arguing that there would not have been forklift trucks in the basement of the building to unload the nano-thermite?

Is he suggesting that it would not be possible to make sure that the wrong people would not have been able to look close enough to see what they were?

Also, it seems to me that PynchMe has confused ordinary (macro) thermite with nano-thermite. Until he properly cites his sources, we will have no way of working out to what he is referring.

Ah, Arjay, the Manhatten Project.

>>The Manhatton Project,ie the development of the nuclear bomb involved 130,000 people.<<

And it leaked like a sieve.

Russia started their own programme in 1941, based on information from their spy network, among them Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall, both of whom worked at Los Alamos.

The US even shared their research - for a while - with the Brits. Who as we know, had their own leakages.

The Manhatten project was secret only in name, not in reality.

>>Months before 911 extensive elevator renovations were carried out in the towers.Marvin Bush, George's bother,owned that company.So we have the opportunity and also the motivation of going to war for profit and power.<<

I see you have already retracted this piece of disinformation, along with it your attempt to describe opportunity and motive.

Face it, you have nothing.

And what's this?

>>Nano thermite can be painted on and is only volitile when critical temps are reached.So painters could apply this not knowing it's potential<<

You are kidding me, right?

Where was this paint applied? To the structural beams, would seem to be the obvious place.

Let's see how this works. You get a bunch of painters to paint the steel columns with this special paint, and the idea is to heat it up all at the same time to make it explode.

Am I on the right track?

So you fly a plane into the building to set the whole thing off. All that aviation fuel should burn hot enough, don't you think?

So why did it then take so long for the "nano-thermite paint" to ignite?

And - given your "instant collapse" theory - how did they manage to get every column to ignite at the same time?

Also, just for good measure, how much paint would be needed on each column to heat it up sufficiently to turn it into a molten stream?

Arjay, you are straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Ah, now that sounds much more plausible. Building 7 collapsed
because of human bungling, ie the sprinklers ran out of water!

Interestingly, in rebuilding the building, they seem to have
learnt their lesson and this time are using reinforced concrete,
rather then the lightweight design of the last building.
That kind of says it all really.

Yes I know.
I said I would not come back.
But I have questions.
Who did fly those planes?
Did Bin Larden lie on congratulating them?
Who tried to blow those twin towers up first time.
Did the USA or the Donald Duck conspiracy team murder also the plane passengers.
As it cost so very much to as near as you can get fail in Iraq was it worth it.
Last, maybe more important than all the other, is it not true those who gain the most from this childlike theme are those most of us know bought down the buildings?
LIES remember are a way of life for some.
Yes I will draw insults, be belittled as others have, but retain my senses and know truth from rubbish.

Yabby,

Whether or not sprinkler failed in parts of WTC 7 does not explain how WTC collapsed in exactly the same manner as controlled demolition, which included an initial 2.25 seconds of free fall through 8 stories.

How do you explain that free fall, unless explosives were used?

---

Pericles, perhaps spies acting for Russia and acting for the UK were able to pass on some information about the Manhattan project, but they sure kept it a secret from the US media and the US public.

---

There was no intended disinformation in Arjay's post about Securacom as Pericles well knows.

The fact remains that Securacom, which looked after much of the security for the World Trade Center, had links with the Bush family. Even if Marvin Bush left in 2000, those left would have still had close relationship with him and other members of the Bush Family.

---

All of Pericles' 'arguments' about nano-thermite are silly non-sequiturs.

Painting it on is only one means of applying it. It can just as well be applied in more conventional ways as the video "Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" at http://www.911blogger.com/node/22236 http://candobetter.org/node/1743 shows.

Pericles has yet to specifically explain what is wrong with this video.

Daggett, if you read the history of that building, it certainly
was not a typical design. It was built over the top of a sub
power station, designed to take 25 stories, they added 47.

Then when the lease changed, they removed most of three existing
floors, to suit the new tenants, as they had trouble renting the
place out.

The top floors were of tubular structure. So lots of engineering
went on to make things fit, which might have seemed like a good
idea at the time, but clearly was not!

Then you had 90000 litres of diesel on the fifth floor.

The weight of the concrete floors and cladding etc is going to
pull inwards, not outwards. Once steel is soft from heat and
enough of it gives, the whole thing collpses.

For me there are plenty of reasons why that building would have
collapsed, when the sprinklers failed. But to do a proper study
you'd need the plans and know what was altered and how the debris
landed up.

There are plenty of qualified architects, who would have the
information to form an informed opinion. Plenty would be
democrats too, so would have yelled pretty loudly, if they had
thought it was a way of getting Bush out of office and there
was any merit to your arguments.

Whilst Yabby's post just may, if we were not to dispute any of his assertions, explain why WTC 7 collapsed, it does not begin to explain how it could have collapsed excatly in the manner of a controlled demolition falling at free fall speed for the first 8 stories.

Daggett, I am not even trying to explain why the building collapsed
in a manner that looked like a controlled demolition. Fact is,
to do that, you need one hell of a lot of information, which nobody
has. You guys are coming along years later, with the odd video,
claiming it must be so.

All I did was parrot a few points straight out of the Wickipedia
page that I quoted, which gave a reasonably detailed history of
the building. IMHO after reading it, is sounded more like
a bit of perhaps shonky architecture, to make maximum profits out
of the site, for everything was seemingly pushed to the limits.

When it comes to money and people, nothing surprises me. They will
do what seems like a good idea at the time, but when something
simple like sprinklers fail, results are quite different then
expected.

Interestingly when the building was rebuilt, the design was
changed to steel reinforced concrete, clearly for good reasons!

Did some welds break at critical points as one supporting member
was taken out by heat? Possibly. Nobody knows, without detailed
plans and detailed examination of the wreckage, after the collapse.

So all you are doing is claiming to know the truth, based on mere
speculation, many years after the event.

Given the tiny bit that I know about its design, from the Wickipedia
page, I certainly would not have invested any money in that building.

There's nothing to "explain", daggett

>>Pericles has yet to specifically explain what is wrong with this video<<

What the video presents is a hypothesis. Not proof, or even evidence.

The giveaway is at the end, where the voiceover says words to the effect that "once you believe there have been explosions, you see the entire event through new eyes"

Well of course you do, you goose.

But presupposing the planting and detonation of explosives is 100% certain to arrive at the conclusion that explosives have been used, is it not?

The actual concept of the hypothesis is completely sound. You make observations on events, and postulate as to their cause.

Like the sun going around the earth, for example. People can see that with their own eyes.

Here, you hypothesise that explosives were placed and used. But it is then up to you to back this up with something other than totally circumstantial evidence.

Of which you have precisely none.

I had to laugh at this one:

>>Painting [nano-thermite] on is only one means of applying it.<<

Errr... it wasn't I who suggested that it was painted on, daggett, it was Arjay.

And you are definitely stretching the truth beyond its natural limits with this one:

>>It can just as well be applied in more conventional ways as the video "Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center" at http://www.911blogger.com/node/22236 http://candobetter.org/node/1743 shows.<<

The video makes no reference to the quantity or placement process required. It merely assumes that they got there somehow. As does your "letter to Kev", which somewhat superfluously asks:

>>Kevin Rudd should ask himself how Al Quaeda, operating out of Afghanistan, could have gained the access to the North Tower, which would have been necessary to plant the charges<<

This again requires an assumption that the charges were indeed there in the first place.

Which, as I pointed out, is merely an untested and uncorroborated hypothesis.

Yabby, as you should well know, Wikipedia is changed by people with huge resources that allow them to do so, such as the CIA, former Prime Minister John Howard, and Australia's Growth Lobby (see "Immigration to Australia - more the better... according to Growth Lobby submission on Wikipedia" of 4 Jan 10 at http://candobetter.org/node/1756 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia ("How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 9 February 09 by me at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0 may also be of interest)).

So I am not going to accept the veracity of any concocted after-the-fact rationales for the 'collapse', unassisted by explosives, that is, unless you can show elsewhere where they have been used by authoritative bodies to explain the 'collapse'.

---

Yabby wrote, "I am not even trying to explain why the building collapsed in a manner that looked like a controlled demolition."

Nor did the National Institute of Standards and and Technology (NIST) charged with investigating that 'collapse'.

Leading Dutch demolition Engineer Danny Danny Jowenko was at first unaware that WTC 7 'collapsed' of 11 September 2001.

When he viewed the video of the WTC 7 'collapse' he said, "They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards." When asked if he was certain, he replied: "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

("From The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009) by David Ray Griffin p122)

So, why is Danny Jowenko wrong?

Pericles wrote, "What the video presents is a hypothesis. Not proof, or even evidence."

Pericles has not acknowledged my earlier combined post of 30 December (#79233) and 31 December (#79252), where I explain why that video is proof that explosives were used to sever the corner supporting columns of the North Tower.

If Pericles won't either offer his own explanation for what was observed in that video or acknowledge that that is evidence of my hypothesis, then there is little point in continuing that discussion with him, is there?

Also Pericles should acknowledge that the the official explanation of the North Tower 'collapse' is also a hypothesis, and if he wants us to accept that hypothesis as being true, then he should produce evidence in support of his hypothesis.

Daggett, I have not examined the matter in detail, but to the
best of my knowledge, who writes and who alters stuff written for
Wickipedia, is in fact public information. If you can show that
the CIA was involved in writing about building plans for building
7, then you would indeed have reason to wonder! Do you have any
such evidence?

The fact that the construction of the building was a bit dodgy,
would be well known amongst the architectural and building community
of NY. So if the information on Wickpedia was shonky, they would
soon raise that as an issue. After all, the original building was
only built in the 1980s and 3 floors cut out etc, at a later date.

It is indeed possible that the video looked to Jowenko, as if it
were a controlled demolition, for the brain after all, works by
association.

Fact is, there could have been issues due to the way it was constructed,
welds cracking at specific points, design flaws etc,
for that being nothing more then a coinsidance, that it looked
similar, years later, on a video.

For that, one would need a copy of the plans and a detailed
inspection of the wreckage and debris, to produce the kind of
evidence required.

It is even possible that some things were noted and recorded and
even covered up at the time. But its far more likely due to be
due to fear of litigation against the builders, architects or
owners, litigation being rather common in the US, then just
claiming "the CIA did it".

Unless of course, I wanted to sell books to conspiracy nuts, for
clearly that is a highly profitable industry :)

Doesn't wash, daggett.

>>Pericles has not acknowledged my earlier combined post of 30 December (#79233) and 31 December (#79252), where I explain why that video is proof that explosives were used to sever the corner supporting columns of the North Tower.<<

You may "explain why that video is proof" until you are blue in the face, daggett - and no doubt will.

But you should know by now that constant repetition of an unsupported frog of a hypothesis will never magically turn it into the handsome prince of truth.

>>If Pericles won't either offer his own explanation for what was observed in that video or acknowledge that that is evidence of my hypothesis, then there is little point in continuing that discussion with him, is there?<<

Suit yourself, daggett.

Unlike you, I am prepared to accept that the building collapsed without the aid of internally-placed explosives. That is therefore "my own explanation".

Of course, exactly like yours, it is based entirely on the work of others.

>>Also Pericles should acknowledge that the the official explanation of the North Tower 'collapse' is also a hypothesis, and if he wants us to accept that hypothesis as being true, then he should produce evidence in support of his hypothesis.<<

It is not up to me to produce any evidence whatsoever, given that I am totally at ease with the official determination. It has a huge advantage over alternate theories, in that it is wholly credible.

Unlike you, who has some kind of vested political interest in the promotion of conspiracy theories, I have no reason to question an existing, totally credible theory, that can only be attacked with the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

Interpreting puffs of smoke on a video as conclusive evidence that explosives were somehow covertly introduced to the building, placed in key locations, and simultaneously detonated in order to further some vague ambition for world domination is, I am afraid, the wildest of fantasies.

Pericles wrote, "It is not up to me to produce any evidence whatsoever, given that I am totally at ease with the official determination. ..."

Yes, I think we have all worked out a long time ago that you are "totally at ease" with an explanation which flies in the face of overwhelming eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and the laws of physics.

But a good many others are not and that includes hundreds of thousands of people killed because people in their midst, who could not have committed that crime, were blamed for that crime.

"... It has a huge advantage over alternate theories, in that it is wholly credible."

Translation: It's true, because its true, because it's true, because the established authorities tell us that it is true, so it must be true.

Pericles wrote, "Unlike you, who has some kind of vested political interest in the promotion of conspiracy theories, ..."

Yes you have.

If you reject the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement then you must necessarily embrace the bizarre Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory peddled by the US and Australian Governments which holds that there is an all-powerful world-wild conspiracy centred in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and now it seems, Yemen, too) in which terrorist cells all over the world including are itching to inflict more mayhem on the infidel west on a scale at least comparable to 9/11.

Somehow, in spite of 9/11 having been orchestrated in Afghanistan and the hijackers having been trained there, not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured after 8 years of military occupation.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The same paranoid beliefs that you are now peddling were used by John Howard in 2007 as a pretext to place the Sydney CBD under martial law at a cost to Australian taxpayers of $250 million so that the APEC leaders could be protected from this illusory terrorist threat, and then they completely failed to protect those leaders from a Chaser member dressed to look like Osama bin Laden. (Why do you think that security failed so abysmally, Pericles? I'll tell you why: It's because whilst they knew perfectly well that there never was a terrorist threat. As for the 'threat' of being made to look like complete idiots by a team of Australian comedians, they were completely unprepared.)

---

Pericles wrote, "Interpreting puffs of smoke on a video as conclusive evidence that explosives were somehow covertly introduced to the building ... is ... the wildest of fantasies."

I consider it conclusive proof, but I am not asking you to accept it as such.

I am simply asking you to offer your own explanation of the cause of those phenomena captured on that video.

Or would you have us believe that it is perfectly normal for clouds of debris (or, as you put it, "puffs of smoke") to be violently ejected from solid concrete walls without any cause?

Do you insist that the fact that the corner columns were severed at the point where the plumes of debris were ejected had nothing to do with the latter?

Do you also insist that the start of the free-fall of those columns had nothing to do with the observed violent plumes of debris further down, with which they coincided exactly?

daggett, you are beginning to repeat yourself.

>>...you are "totally at ease" with an explanation which flies in the face of overwhelming eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and the laws of physics.<<

There is no "overwhelming eyewitness testimony" to the introduction, precise placing and simultaneous detonation of (how much was it again?) explosives, upon which your madcap theories rely.

>>Translation: It's true, because its true, because it's true, because the established authorities tell us that it is true, so it must be true.<<

I said credible, daggett. Capable of being believed.

The story produced by the authorities is at least credible. Which is more than can be said for the farrago of fantasies that you subscribe to

>>If you reject the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement then you must necessarily embrace the bizarre Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory etc. etc. ad naus.<<

It is not logical that if I don't believe X, I must therefore believe Y.

I reject the "9/11 Truth Movement" theories simply because they have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. As with every conspiracy theory, it relies on a mish-mash of circumstantial evidence, twisted to form a narrative that suits your weird worldview.

>>I am simply asking you to offer your own explanation of the cause of those phenomena captured on that video<<

It's a building collapsing.

>>would you have us believe that it is perfectly normal for clouds of debris... to be violently ejected from solid concrete walls without any cause?<<

The cause was the building collapsing.

>>Do you insist that the fact that the corner columns were severed at the point where the plumes of debris were ejected had nothing to do with the latter?<<

It certainly doesn't surprise me that debris is ejected as a building collapses.

>>Do you also insist that the start of the free-fall of those columns had nothing to do with the observed violent plumes of debris further down<<

I don't "insist" on anything. But since you ask, the existence of debris ejecting from lower floors does not strike me as particularly surprising, given that... the buiding was collapsing.

The difference in our perceptions, daggett, is that you find amusement, or enjoyment, or pleasure or whatever in the spinning of yarns about anything remotely anti-establishment.

It is your hobby, or fixation, and there appears to be nothing that you or anybody else can do about it.

Appeals to rationality, reason or logic seem to perpetually fall on deaf ears.

Reading bits from your blog, it is clear that you aspire to be "somebody".

But you haven't yet worked out that in order to be "somebody", you have to develop schtick that actually comes from somewhere, and has the possibility to go somewhere.

Yours is the equivalent of kicking a tin can in the street. You may get a few people, equally bored, to kick it around with you for a while. But it is essentially a meaningless and pointless waste of time.

But I digress.

Here on OLO, you shamelessly use any forum available, to peddle your 9/11 fantasies. It is a point of honour that somebody calls you on it every so often, which is one of the reasons you are getting this gratuitous character analysis.

It's not that your arguments need to be rebutted. Many others, in many other web sites, have done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists.

Nor is it because you are in any way important.

It's just that you are annoying.

Not very annoying.

But ingrowing-toenail-that-never-completely-goes-away annoying.

You would have us believe, according to your blog, that your failure to kick-start a political career wasn't simply a reflection of your own abilities.

The elections were rigged.

"The recently concluded Queensland elections were massively rigged against independent candidates like myself and the Greens. So too were the Brisbane City Council elections of a year ago in which I stood for Lord Mayor."

http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

One day, you may come to understand that the answer to all your conspiracy fantasies is staring you in the face.

Every morning.

In the mirror.

Too funny, Pericles :)

Mind you, James will not be amused.

I see that, true to form, Christopher, having run away from another discussion with his tail between his legs (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9851&page=7) has slunk back to this one and seized his chance to snipe at me from beneath the skirts of another contributor.

---

Pericles, I never claimed that anyone had testified as to where, how and much explosives were placed in the twin towers and WTC 7.

I would still suggest, however, that this is not reason to finish the investigation if there is still abundant other evidence that the crime has not been solved. On example is this testimony from the YouTube Video "9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

1st firefighter: "We made it outside. We made it about a block ... "

2nd firefighter: "We made it at least two blocks, and we started running."

1st firefighter: (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds) "Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh ..."

2nd firefighter: (making roughly similar gesture with clenched fist) "Floor by floor they started popping out."

1st firefighter: "It was as if they had detonators ... "

2nd firefighter: "Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down."

1st firefighter: "...planned to take down the whole building." (gestures with hands again to mimic succession of descending explosions in synch with sounds) "Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom"

2nd firefighter: "All the way down. I was watching it and running."

---

Pericles wrote: "It is not logical that if I don't believe X, I must therefore believe Y."

Well, I don't think it's logical to claim that no-one committed the crimes of 9/11, the Bali Bombings, the Madrid Bombings, the London Tube Bombings, etc. If they were not caused by a conspiracy amongst senior figures in the US and/or other Western Governments and not committed by that world wide conspiracy of Islamist extremists centred in Afghanistan as claimed by the US, Australian and British Governments, then who did it?

---

I see that Pericles now would have us all believe that all that is needed to explain all the video evidence, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence of ... (tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) ... nano-thermite and iron rich micro-spheres in dust from the WTC, evidence of molten steel beneath where the towers stood etc is:

"It's a building collapsing."

If it was all that easy to explain, Pericles, why do you think they went to all the trouble and expense to set up the NIST (so-called) investigation?

---

I have to say that psychological diagnosis of me seems rather wide of the mark. I suggest you don't give up your day job to work as a counsellor.

Pericles writes, "Reading bits from your blog, it is clear that you aspire to be 'somebody'."

I aspire to make a difference in Australian politics and, ultimately, world politics, because I believe that our political leaders are leading our society to the abyss. I wouldn't particularly mind becoming a politician, myself, particularly if that would help that process along, but I am not under any illusions that that is guaranteed to be easy or guaranteed to happen soon.

If you believe that I am wrong in my view of where the world is headed or that I am wrong to want to do something about it, I would be happy to discuss those questions some time.

Pericles wrote, "Here on OLO, you shamelessly use any forum available, to peddle your 9/11 fantasies. ... (blah, blahh, blah)"

I raise 9/11 where I believe it to be appropriate and I raise a whole range of other issues.

Pericles wrote, "It's not that your arguments need to be rebutted. Many others, in many other web sites, have done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists."

Well, why don't you show everyone precisely where this has happened? I would be particularly interested to know where you have been able to debunk any detail of any (unofficial) conspiracy theory I have put.

---

Yes, I think the Queensland State elections were rigged as were the Brisbane Council Elections. Obviously I don't mean 'rigged' in the sense of ballots being interfered with, but I mean in a far broader sense.

(tobecontinued)

Pericles - "... given that... the buiding was collapsing."
Haw! I enjoyed that immensely.

Anyway - daggett - my comments were FROM Dr Niels Harritt himself - from a couple of his interviews.

Just FYI - here is a film of another building collapse a while after impact of a crashing plane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwOwQ9HI4IA

Arjay neither you nor dagget has answered any of my questions:

<"... let's assume it did happen: I'd be looking at the owner of the buildings and insurance claims and such. Surely the insurer would be most interested in initiating an independent inquiry anyway - which they are entitled to and equipped to launch.

Why is it that the government is believed to have set it up (if it happened) rather than the building owner/s or some foreign power or just plain terrorists.

Maybe the owner is a terrorist or sympathiser? Mebbe some anti-US ME faction owned the buildings ? Have any of those possibilities been explored ?">

"Tail between my legs", James?

Hardly - I've noticed that engaging with you just encourages you to post more delusional crap. I don't want to do that.

Ciao.

Ok, I've studiously been through all the references you have provided so far, daggett, now it's your turn.

>>I would be particularly interested to know where you have been able to debunk any detail of any (unofficial) conspiracy theory I have put<<

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

This pretty much covers it.

If you have any further questions - there are additional links at the bottom of the page that you will need to go through first - please don't hesitate to ask.

Pericles!

Har har bloody har! Tears, pain, crossed legs and seriously loud laughter. Funniest page I've seen in months.

Thanks for that - now bookmarked under 'funnies'.

pynch

*I aspire to make a difference in Australian politics and, ultimately, world politics*

Oops Daggett, sounds like delusions of grandeur to me lol, so
Pericle's psychological assessment was probably not far off
the mark.

As it happens, just this afternoon the BBC ran a programme
as part of the "Conspiracy Files", this time about building 7.

One of the conspiracy engineers made such ridiculous claims,
that perhaps the explosives were planted when the building was
built! Surely even you conspiracy nuts should start to
question such nonsense.

But they did show some beams and the clear evidence where
the connections had failed, between the truss beams and
the columns, which even I, without seeing any plans, but
having a very basic understanding of steel structures, had
mentioned as the most likely weak point. One gold
star for Yabby :)

So a question. How much money has this Dylan Avery made
out of this whole conspiracy claim?

Pericles,

Whilst the post at http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons appears to have amused one or two evidently easily amused posters, you haven't shown me where you or others have rebutted the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement on Online Opinion.

My own recollection is that on every occasion that this has been argued on OLO, the 'debunkers' have been roundly humiliated. Please show me by providing links to the relevant discussion forums where I am wrong.

---

Yabby, NIST never even examined what little there remained of WTC 7 after all the rest of the evidence had been carted off to China to be mented down.

So, let me know if "the clear evidence where the connections had failed, between the truss beams and the columns" or just computer models like those used by NIST to 'explain' the 'collapse' which can be made to do whatever the computer programmers tell them to do.

---

It's so typical that Yabby and Pericles try to attack me personally when they can't win the argument.

Incidentally, Pericles, I happen to think I think I am a 'somebody' even if you say you do not.

Why don't you tell us a little about yourself, Pericles, so the rest of us can sit in judgement on the way you use your own influence to to help our corporate elites at everyone else's expense?

Anyway, what I meant to say was that a fantastic book that is worth at least twice as much as the recommended retail price of $46.95 for the hardcove edition is:

"JFK and the unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters" (first published in 2008) by James W Douglass.

The core thesis of the book is that JFK was executed by the same military-industrial complex that former President Dwight D Eisenhower warned against in January 1961 shortly before he handed the reins of office across to JFK.

In meeting after meeting with the US joint Chiefs of Staff, President Kennedy repeatedly stood alone against their demands that they invade Cuba, bomb Cuba and launch a pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the USSR.

We have him, and him alone to thank for the fact that hundreds of millions were not killed in 1961, 1962 and 1963 and, perhaps human civilisation itself was saved from total destruction.

On the basis of that alone, all humankind owes JFK an unrepayable debt of gratitude.

At the very least, we owe it to him to learn the truth of why he was murdered, who murdered him and to make that truth known to others.

Good grief, are you still here daggett?

>>you haven't shown me where you or others have rebutted the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement on Online Opinion... Please show me by providing links to the relevant discussion forums where I am wrong.<<

As I said, the links are all at the end of the URL I gave you. If you can't be bothered to look them up, that's your problem.

I guess this illustrates another of the reasons I find your posts so tedious. You are quite happy to ride off the coat-tails of some conspiracy nutters by doing a cut-and-paste job on their fantasies. But you refuse to refer to the sites that debunk those idiocies, instead you expect me to do your work for you.

Face it daggett. You have no more idea of the architecture of the WTC, or the flashpoint of aviation spirit, or the significance of nano-thermite, or the melting-point of steel girders than my dear old grandad.

And he's been dead for thirty years.

Your preferred source of entertainment is to cut'n'paste the bits you find that jive with your own "they're all out to get us" worldview, and throw them out there as if they are somehow significant.

The really neat bit as far as you are concerned, is that it doesn't actually involve you in any thinking. You just lather, rinse and repeat the same old junk.

If you did actually spare a few brain cells for a while from whatever it is they actually do - breathing probably takes up most of their energies - you would be able to work out that those theories that you have borrowed so assiduously, are not remotely feasible in the real world.

>>Incidentally, Pericles, I happen to think I think I am a 'somebody' even if you say you do not.<<

Of course you are "somebody", daggett. It's just that you are not the person that you think you are.

One day your mirror is going to tell you exactly that.

I guess the other thing I don't understand about your posts, daggett, is why you feel it necessary to write dribble like this.

>>My own recollection is that on every occasion that this has been argued on OLO, the 'debunkers' have been roundly humiliated<<

That's just ner-nerny-ner stuff. I'd expect that from a ten-year-old in a school playground.

Of course your recollection is different from everyone else's. That's the whole point of what I've been trying to explain to you. If you don't listen, you don't learn.

And if you go around with your fingers in your ears going "la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you" every time someone provides a different view, the only person you will convince is yourself.

Continuous self-gratification is a fundamentally flawed lifestyle, daggett.

>>Why don't you tell us a little about yourself, Pericles, so the rest of us can sit in judgement on the way you use your own influence to to help our corporate elites at everyone else's expense?<<

That's an intriguing question, given that it really isn't a question at all. It illustrates another of your verbal tics, one that speaks volumes about your inner lack of confidence.

You assume i) that I actually have influence, ii) that this "influence" is somehow employed to the benefit of "corporate elites".

That simply tells me that you are an appalling judge of on-line character, daggett. And possibly paranoid.

Mind you, we already knew that, from the dildoes you choose to believe in the course of your online rambles.

But it's nice to know that you have found another weapon in your brave resistance against the "military-industrial complex" (I love that phrase - so trite. So meaningless) in a book that someone wrote a couple of years ago.

I expect you will be doing some copy'n'paste from that for us in the near future.

Can't wait.

Pericles wrote, "You assume ... that [my] 'influence' is somehow employed to the benefit of 'corporate elites'."

Sure it isn't, Pericles.

You just spend hours of each day filling these forums with views, all of which just happen to exactly coincide with the views of the corporate newsmedia, out of the goodness of your heart.

---

Pericles wrote, "I expect you will be doing some copy'n'paste from that for us in the near future."

If Pericles was honest, he would acknowledge that well over half of my posts are my own words and not pasted from elsewhere.

In any case, in my experience, virtually every historical book I can think of contains substantial amounts of direct quotes from others. Would Pericles also object to that?

Would he prefer that they simply made up my facts and arguments without references and focussed on personally attacking historical figures or other historians they don't like?

---

Pericles wrote, "... it is clear that you aspire to be 'somebody'."

Then Pericles wrote, "Of course you are 'somebody', daggett."

Well, thanks for clearing that up, Pericles. I am so relieved to know that you think that I am 'somebody' after all, even if not quite the 'somebody' you imagine I think I am or would aspire to be.

Of course this all has a lot to do with the topic at hand, doesn't it?

---

I note Pericles has failed to substantiate his claim:

"Many others, in many other web sites, have done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists."

And he has not shown where this has happened on OLO, even though we have both participated in at least one other discussion on 9/11.

Pericles, if you believe the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement to be wrong, then I see no reason why you should not be able to demonstrate that it is wrong here.

If, instead, you want to claim that that case has been refuted elsewhere, then I would suggest that at least you should demonstrate here how that has occurred elsewhere.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Nothing on the site http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons [1] comes remotely close to addressing the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement as far as I can tell.

If you expect others to believe otherwise, then I would suggest that it is up to you to demonstrate that to be the case and not up to me to prove the reverse.

---

Anyway,

James W Douglass's book is definitely bargain at $46.95 for the hardback edition.

When Kennedy set out in 1963 to get agreement to a the comprehensive ban (except for underground testing) on testing nuclear weapons that had been agreed to by the USSR, he was opposed not only by the military and congress, but also, overwhelmingly, by the newsmedia and public opinion.

At the outset of his initiative in August 1963, Congressional mail was running fifteen to one against the ban (p52).

However he managed to turn public opinion and in September 80% of public opinion supported the ban. He got the Senate to vote 80 to 19 -- 14 more than the required two-thirds on 24 September (p54).

But, of course, the military-industrial complex never accepted that verdict, and Kennedy was murdered only 2 months later as a result.

---

FOOTNOTES

1. BTW, I would suggest that the only "9/11 morons" here are those who actually believe in the official paranoid conspiracy theory of a world-wide conspiracy of Islamist extremist centred in Afghanistan, even though not a single person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured after 8 years of military occupation. (Of course, that does not apply to those who know the Official Conspiracy Theory to be false, but nevertheless public maintain that it is not, because they personally stand to gain from the perpetuation of that lie.)

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

In 1999 a jury in a civil trial of Loyd Jowers, owner of the motel in which King was slain, found:

"On the evening of April 4 1968, Martin Luther King was in Memphis supporting a worker's strike. By the end of the day, top-level army snipers were in position to knock him out if ordered. Two military officers were in place on the roof of a fire station near the Lorraine Motel, to photograph the events. Two black firemen had been ordered not to report to duty that day and a black Memphis Police Department detective on surveillance duty in the fire station was physically removed from his post and taken home. Dr. King's room at the motel was changed from a secluded ground-floor room to number 306 on the balcony. Loyd Jowers, owner of Jim's Grill which backed to the motel from the other side of the street, had already received $100,000 in cash for his agreement to participate in the assassination. He was to go out into the brush area behind the grill with the shooter and take possession of the gun immediately after the fatal shot was fired. When the dust settled, King had been hit, and a clean-up procedure was immediately set in motion. James Earl Ray was effectively framed, the snipers dispersed, any witnesses who could not be controlled were killed, and the crime scene was destroyed." (cited at http://911blogger.com/node/22402#comment-225954)

Why, then if a jury, after considering the evidence and witness testimony over a number of weeks, found that there was a conspiracy involving the US state to murder Martin Luther King, are so many unwilling to even consider the vast volume of evidence that similarly implicates the US state in the murders of President Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert Kennedy?

I imagined nothing less, daggett.

>>Nothing on the site http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons [1] comes remotely close to addressing the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement as far as I can tell.<<

I expect you only looked at the pictures.

At the end of the page there are two more sites for you to have fun with.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

When you've finished with those, do let me know.

>>If Pericles was honest, he would acknowledge that well over half of my posts are my own words and not pasted from elsewhere.<<

I disagree. You'll find that the vast majority of your conspiracy-nuttery was "researched" and written by others. In your blind acceptance that "if it points to the 'military-industrial complex' [c'mon, what does that mean, eh?] it must be true", you provide no confidence at all that you are able to tell fact from fantasy.

The most glaringly obvious problems are the sheer impossibility of the logistics, and the sheer impossibility of keeping all of it under wraps. Once you ignore those, as you do, you consider yourself free to endorse any old story.

Given the blundering incompetence of the US's miltary adventures - remember how we chuckled over Bay of Pigs, giggled at Grenada and cringed at Cambodia - your faith in the "military-industrial complex", whatever you may conceive it to be, is massively misplaced.

>>You just spend hours of each day filling these forums with views, all of which just happen to exactly coincide with the views of the corporate newsmedia<<

While you spend hours of each day filling these forums with views, all of which just happen to exactly coincide with the views of the random conspiracy nuts on the internet.

I know, it's fun thinking of yourself as a rebel, standing up to "the man" by attributing to him all sorts of evils, large and small, then taking blind swats at them like some latter-day Don Quixote.

Yes, it's fun. But it's also ultimately pointless, as you tilt at the windmills of your imagination, armed with a bunch of highly dubious "facts" that you have borrowed from other people.

G'day Daggett, <"Whilst the post at http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons appears to have amused one or two evidently easily amused posters..."

That's me! It is the funniest damned site I've seen in ages and I have had a few good hearty laughs reading it.

You still didn't answer the only question I have about that particular conspiracy, which is, why is the government accused ? If it was a dodgy event (and I just don't believe it was - there is no convincing evidence that even suggests it) there are other more likely candidates such as the owner/s of the buildings. You all seem to have never investigated any alternative possibilities.

Other than that - keep up the good work. I love conspiracy theorists, as I have said. Not only a great laugh, but sometimes raising really important questions. Good oh. So much better than apathy.

I do think it's likely that JFK and others were assassinated. Wouldn't surprise me at all. However, again why the government? How about some overseas interest? Or organized crime, or the KKK. There are so many possibilities it's a pity that you all seem to limit yourselves to accusations against government.

Edit:

Sorry - sleepy.

I meant to say, "I do think it's likely that JFK and others were assassinated by people other than or in addition to the people accused of the crimes."

Why did you presume that I only saw the pictures, Pericles?

In fact all of the Popular Mechanics article has been torn to tiny shreds by David Ray Griffin in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (2007) and the whole NIST report has been similarly torn to tiny pieces, again by David Ray Griffin in "From The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009).

If there is anything in those pages you still maintain has not been thoroughly refuted, please let us know and let us know why and we can proceed from there.

Pericles wrote, "You'll find that the vast majority of your conspiracy-nuttery was 'researched' and written by others."

Most of what I have written has been researched by others, but it still took effort on my part to read the research, comprehend it and write about it so others could understand.

If you insist that any of what I have written which I have not attributed to others has, in fact, been written by others, then why not provide examples?

Why are the logistics of planting and wiring explosives impossible, Pericles? As I wrote earlier, 83 employees of the Ace Elevator Company had easy access to much of the the structural columns of the twin towers for nine months prior to 9/11.

Pericles wrote, "Given the blundering incompetence of the US's miltary adventures - remember how we chuckled ..."

Who's 'we' Pericle?

" ... over Bay of Pigs, ..."

How was that "blundering incompetence"?

The planners of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew perfectly well that there would be no popular support for the invasion inside Cuba. The only mistake made was that they assumed wrongly that they could bully the new President Kennedy into authorising US troops to participate in the illegal invasion, but it turns out that they assumed wrongly.

"... giggled at Grenada ..."

Again, how was that "blundering incompetence"? They invaded an island nation and removed a socialist government in an unequal fight at a cost of 19 killed and 119 wounded.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

"... and cringed at Cambodia "

They carpet bombed the country, killing between 150,00 and 500,000 people (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl02.html) and effectively drove Cambodians into the arms of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

I fail to see how anyone with even a shred of compassion in them human being could "chuckle" or "giggle" at any of this.

The fact remains that the US military, whilst it makes mistakes from time to time is nevertheless remains an efficient killing machine.

As far as I am concerned, claims that this is due to 'incompetence' whether that of George W Bush, the US military or even the Howard Government over the AWB scandal are just dishonest ploys, the purposes of which are to conceal the criminality of their actions as well as, of course, to trick people into not considering the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

---

PynchMe, if 9/11 had been perpetrated by groups independent of the Bush Administration and against the wishes of the Bush administration, then why did the Bush administration go to such extraordinary lengths to conceal that crime by, for example, shipping off all the evidence from the crime scene to be melted down?

Why weren't Rudi Giuliani and Larry Silverstein questioned by the 9/11 Commission about their clear prior knowledge of the 'collapses'?

Why was so much eyewitness testimony of the use of explosives ignored?

OK, I'll bite.

>>Why was so much eyewitness testimony of the use of explosives ignored?<<

And this eye-witness testimony can be found where, daggett?

I am assuming that you have eye-witness testimony that explosives were planted, not just that some folk heard popping sounds and saw some puffs of smoke.

>>I fail to see how anyone with even a shred of compassion in them human being could "chuckle" or "giggle" at any of this.<<

It was the utter stupidity and incompetence that was being chuckled at, not the end result. As you well know.

>>Why did you presume that I only saw the pictures, Pericles?<<

Because you clearly hadn't bothered to read the words.

>>all of the Popular Mechanics article has been torn to tiny shreds by David Ray Griffin<<

There you go, quoting the work of others as if it somehow is gospel. Don't you ever think for yourself?

>>If there is anything in those pages you still maintain has not been thoroughly refuted<<

It wasn't convincing enough as a refutation in the first place.

>>Most of what I have written has been researched by others, but it still took effort on my part to read the research, comprehend it and write about it so others could understand<<

As I said, you Google a bit then copy'n'paste. 'Cos it's certain that you don't understand any of it.

For example, have you any thoughts on how it all was put together? How many people were involved, how they sourced the necessary materials, how they managed to put all these explosives in place so expertly, how they managed to coordinate the explosions, and how they remain completely undetected?

All you have is a few "if"-based suppositions, which you knit together - very loosely - into some sinister, unattributable attack on...

...and that's the other thing. Who benefitted from your version of events, and who was therefore the target?

Face it daggett. You aren't providing answers. Just material for ever wilder and wackier questions, that get you further and further away from the simple, murderous suicide attack by terrorists on prominent landmarks.

Hiya Daggett: <"PynchMe, if 9/11 had been perpetrated by groups independent of the Bush Administration and against the wishes of the Bush administration, then why did the Bush administration go to such extraordinary lengths to conceal that crime by, for example, shipping off all the evidence from the crime scene to be melted down?

Why weren't Rudi Giuliani and Larry Silverstein questioned by the 9/11 Commission about their clear prior knowledge of the 'collapses'?

Why was so much eyewitness testimony of the use of explosives ignored?">

Taking scrap metal and additional debris away is usual clean up procedure. I don't know what else anyone would expect them to do with it.

I haven't seen any evidence that Rudi Giuliani and Larry Silverstein had clear (or muddy, for that matter) prior knowledge. I think Silverstein had some sort of financial interest in the buildings though and if that is correct then he would be a candidate for investigation by THE INSURERS. I imagine any insurance company would be right on top of any effort to defraud them of umpteen million dollars. In the usual course of things, those matters are primarily between property owner and insurer; not regular gov. biz.

There was no eyewitness testimony of explosives as far as I recall from our earlier exchange and the information on the site I linked before. Some fireman said the sounds were pop, pop, pop like explosions (I think) but that doesn't mean they were caused by any explosive material rigged to go off. Sounds like that could be caused in lots of ways when a building is burning like, for example, rapid change in air pressure; air conditioning units; pipes bursting; outer layers lifting... whatever.

Pericles has avoided explaining why the 9/11 commission and NIST refused to acknowledge evidence such as in the video "9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

1st firefighter: “We made it outside. We made it about a block … ”

2nd firefighter: “We made it at least two blocks, and we started running.”

1st firefighter: (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds) “Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh …”

2nd firefighter: (making roughly similar gesture with clenched fist) “Floor by floor they started popping out.”

1st firefighter: “It was as if they had detonators … ”

2nd firefighter: “Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down.”

1st firefighter:”…planned to take down the whole building.” (gestures with hands again to mimic succession of descending explosions in synch with sounds) “Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh”

2nd firefighter: “All the way down. I was watching it and running.”
This is only one of many dozens of examples of testimony, ignored by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, I could give.

---

Pericles, I never claimed that any eyewitness had spoken of having seen the explosives being planted.

So, what is your point?

That's exactly my point, daggett.

>>Pericles, I never claimed that any eyewitness had spoken of having seen the explosives being planted. So, what is your point?<<

Your "eyewitness account" amounts to nothing more than a couple of firemen describing the sounds they heard.

They didn't say "there were detonations", which would have been an eyewitness account.

They were describing the sounds they heard. “Pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh-pchh …as if they had detonators …Yeah, detonators, planted all the way down”

If that is the sum total of your "eyewitness account" for the presence of explosives, then, you must admit, it is pretty weak material.

If they had described the noise as "like a very large rabbit, farting", would you assume that at each corner of each floor there was a flatulent giant bunny?

I find the formal investigation somewhat more convincing.

"the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially."

>>Pericles has avoided explaining why the 9/11 commission and NIST refused to acknowledge evidence such as in the video "9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition"<<

It's because they had a more plausible explanation.

>>This is only one of many dozens of examples of testimony, ignored by the 9/11 Commission and NIST, I could give.<<

If they are all as convincing as this, it's probably better if you kept them to yourself.

*If they had described the noise as "like a very large rabbit, farting", would you assume that at each corner of each floor there was a flatulent giant bunny?*

Hehe Pericles, I love it! 2 Gold stars for you :)

PynchMe wrote: "Taking scrap metal and additional debris away is usual clean up procedure."

Really, PynchMe? And what is the basis for this claim?

Pynchme wrote: "... I don't know what else anyone would expect them to do with it."

How about first examining the debris in order to work out how the buildings 'collapsed'?

I would have thought that examination of the physical material (which NIST adamantly refused to do even with the few surviving samples) would have been much more likely to reveal the cause of the 'collapse' than computer simulations.

---

I wrote, "Why did you presume that I only saw the pictures, Pericles?"

Then Pericles wrote, "Because you clearly hadn't bothered to read the words."

In fact I had read the words. How can you claim to know that I had not?

---

I wrote: "all of the Popular Mechanics article has been torn to tiny shreds by David Ray Griffin."

Then Pericles wrote, "There you go, quoting the work of others as if it somehow is gospel. ..."

But aren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of?

So, why aren't you prepared to put those arguments from Popular Mechanics to this forum so that others can see how well they stand up?

---

I wrote, "Most of what I have written has been researched by others, but it still took effort on my part to read the research, comprehend it and write about it so others could understand."

Then Pericles wrote, "As I said, you Google a bit then copy'n'paste. 'Cos it's certain that you don't understand any of it."

So, why not provide an example of one of my contributions that you claim has been googled and copied and pasted?

---

Pericles wrote, "For example, have you any thoughts on how it all was put together? How many people were involved, how they sourced the necessary materials, how they managed to put all these explosives in place so expertly, how they managed to coordinate the explosions, and how they remain completely undetected?"

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Yes, I have Pericles, but I am not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so.

Nothing you have written has proven that the charges could not have been planted by, for example, the 83 Ace Elevator mechanics who had easy access to most of the structural columns in the Twin Towers in the 9 months prior to 9/11.

---

Pericles wrote (as if he didn't know better), "If that is the sum total of your 'eyewitness account' for the presence of explosives, ..."

Pericles, guess what?

It's not.

After 9/11 503 members of the Fire Department of New York were interviewed and of these 118 members volunteered without being asked volunteered explicit testimony of explosions. A document analysing that testimony is by Graeme MacQueen at http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

Here's just one example:

"Kenneth Rogers, 9110290

"South Tower:

"...we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing."

Also, check out the testimony of 9/11 hero William Rodriguez at: http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Rodriguez or his supervisor Anthony Saltalamacchia at http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#Saltalamacchia which also confirms that the North Tower was rocked by a massive explosion even before Flight 11 struck.

Pericles wrote, "They didn't say 'there were detonations', which would have been an eyewitness account."

The firefighters describe what they saw. They suggest that what they saw was like a controlled demolition, Yet Pericles attaches over-riding significance to the fact that they did not, at that point state that they knew for a fact that they "were" explosions.

I consider this time-wasting pedantry.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Pericles wrote, "I find the formal investigation somewhat more convincing.

"'the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it--much like the action of a piston--forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.'"

So, Pericles, are you also 'convinc[ed]' that compressed air alone could force that plume of debris through solid concrete on the corner of the North Tower and sever the supporting columns, as shown in that video at http://candobetter.org/node/1743 http://911blogger.com/node/22236 ?

Pericles, "If they are all as convincing as this, ..."

It's clear that someone determined to uphold a lie will never be 'convinced'.

The fact remains, that none of the eyewitness testimony of explosions has been acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission or NIST, let alone explained.

---

I wrote (with corrections) "I fail to see how anyone with even a shred of compassion in them could 'chuckle' or 'giggle' at any of this."

Then Pericles wrote, "It was the utter stupidity and incompetence that was being chuckled at, ..."

I don't see where you have proven that there was stupidity and incompetence in any of the events you listed.

Pericles continued, "... not the end result. ..."

Unlike you, when I think of these events, I can't separate the the claimed "stupidity and incompetence" from the "end result".

Even in the "Bay of Pigs" invasion, at least 176 Cubans were killed defending their country.

Pericles continued, "... As you well know."

No, I don't "well know". You are go to extraordinary lengths to uphold a lie that has been used as a pretext for wars in which well over one million people have died.

It is therefore abundantly obvious to me that you are callously indifferent to the welfare of a large number of your fellow human beings.

Your half-baked throw-away line in which you 'giggle' and 'chuckle' about incidents in which up to hundreds of thousands have died as a direct consequence of criminal actions on the part of agencies of the US Government, further confirms this.

You are turning evasion into a science, and blather into an art form, daggett.

I guess that shouldn't be surprising, given your aspirations to a life in politics.

>>In fact I had read the words. How can you claim to know that I had not?<<

Quite simply, daggett, because you gave absolutely no indication that you had read them.

>>aren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of?<<

What, referring to sites that support my assessment of the situation?

Of course I am.

For me, it is sufficient i) that they explain how your conspiracy theories fall down, and ii) that they make far more sense than the complex and convoluted machinations that you subscribe to.

>>Yes, I have [considered the logistics required], but I am not here to completely solve the crime in lieu of the failure by NIST and the 9/11 Commission to do so.<<

C'mon, daggett, you can do better than that, surely?

That is the most obvious cop-out imaginable. "I'm not here to solve the crime..." Puh-lease!

Nobody is asking you to do so. Just give a tiny clue, a hint, an inkling, of how many people were needed to pull together such an exploit. And just a teensy peep behind the curtain on how they did it. Plus perhaps some kind of sketch on how it has been kept quiet.

You see, that to me is the critical issue.

You have two stories. One where a bunch of terrorists fly planes into buildings and they fall down. Another where some bunch of secret agencies plant explosives in a building that are detonated to coincide with said planes.

We all know the "what" (planes hit, buildings fall) and the "when". If you cannot come up with a workable "how", I can't for the life of me see that you are able to speculate on the "who" and the "why".

As for this...

"I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing""

"figured... looked like".

Meaning "the nearest to an experience I'm familiar with."

That's speculation. Not "eye-witness evidence"

Firstly, the points that Pericles has completely avoided responding to in my most recent posts are:

1. My request for an example of any post of mine which Pericles claims that I googled, then copied and pasted, but put none of my own thoughts into.

2. A justification for NIST and the 9/11 Commission completely ignoring a large body of eyewitness testimony of explosions during the 'collapses' of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

3. Whether or not he thinks compressed air alone could have forced those plumes of debris through that concrete face on one of the corners of the North Tower and severed the supporting columns.

From earlier posts, Pericles has a failed to respond to:

1. My question: "If it was all that easy to explain ('It's a building collapsing.'), Pericles, why do you think they went to all the trouble and expense to set up the NIST (so-called) investigation?"

2. Provide one example of where on Online Opinion where he claims anyone has "done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists."

3. My question, "If [9/11, the Bali Bombings, the Madrid Bombings, the London Tube Bombings, etc.] were not caused by a conspiracy amongst senior figures in the US and/or other Western Governments and not committed by that world wide conspiracy of Islamist extremists centred in Afghanistan as claimed by the US, Australian and British Governments, then who did it?"

4. My question: "So, why is Danny Jowenko wrong?"

5. My question, "When you walk around the city, Pericles and look up at the tall buildings around you, do you happen to see similar 'random puffs of smoke' being ejected from the corners of those buildings all the time (not to mention the other massive billowing violent clouds of debris) but somehow leaving all those buildings intact?

"Because unless what we observed in those videos is a common occurrence that happens all the time, every day of the year, then they cannot be described as 'random'. ..."

Note, also, how Pericles has also quietly dropped his claim ... (tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove) ... that the Bay of Pigs invasion, the invasion of Grenada and the US intervention in Cambodia demonstrated incompetence to such a degree as to have have completely precluded any possibility of the US military and spy agences being able to stage 9/11.

---

Pericles wrote, "Just give a tiny clue, a hint, an inkling, of how many people were needed to pull together such an exploit. ..."

But didn't I just do that and done so on repeated occasions before?

I said there were 83 elevator mechanics who had easy access to the structural columns for 9 months. On top of that the security in the Twin Towers was handled by a company with links to the Bush family, so I don't see how the task of giving any necessary additional people access to the buildings, say after hours, have posed any inordinate difficulty?

As also I said, I am not here to completely solve the crime. I am not intimately familiar with building demolition techniques, particularly clandestine techniques, and have no intention of spending days of my time studying the topic.

If you insist that it was impossible for the necessary explosives to have been planted in those circumstance, then please go ahead and prove it.

Pericles (pretending to be a complete moron) continued, "Plus perhaps some kind of sketch on how it has been kept quiet."

Pericles, what do you think the people who had organised and participated in the murder of almost 3,000 US residents would not be prepared to do in order to silence someone who wanted to reveal what had happened?

Pericles, wrote later in the same post, "I can't for the life of me see that you are able to speculate on the 'who' and the 'why'."

I am not altogether sure what this is supposed to mean. If Pericles means to imply that I have not offered a theory as to 'who' perpetrated 9/11 and 'why' they did, then he is lying.

I already explained this extensively in the third of my the posts date Friday, 1 January 2010.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

After I had already stated that I had read the page he linked to, Pericles insists he knows better "because [I] gave absolutely no indication that [I] had read them."

This is what I wrote, "Nothing on the site http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons [1] comes remotely close to addressing the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement as far as I can tell."

From that Pericles would have everyone believe that he knew for a fact that:

1. I had looked at pictures; and
2. That I had not read the text.

How you can claim to know that, Pericles, unless you are claiming that you can read my mind, I don't know.

As I wrote, nothing on that page comes remotely close to his promise fulfils your promise to "have done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists."

That page demonstrably does not "pretty much [cover] it."

As for the pages linked to, I have already looked at enough of them in the past to have been able to see that they don't fulfill that promise either.

If you insist otherwise, then it is up to you to demonstrate that they do. Why should we be excpected to take your word for it?

---

I wrote, "aren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of?"

Then Pericles wrote (pretending not to understand my question), "What, referring to sites that support my assessment of the situation?"

No, Pericles, you accused me of treating material on some sites as Gospel.

In fact, that is precisely what you are doing with the Popular Mechanics site and the NIST sites.

Seems pretty fair to me, daggett.

>>Pericles, you accused me of treating material on some sites as Gospel. In fact, that is precisely what you are doing with the Popular Mechanics site and the NIST sites.<<

We put two information sources side by side.

One may be considered straightforward and factual.

The other may be seen as a farrago of misinformation and speculation.

We then make a decision, which one to go with.

You and I have decided differently at this point.

Please accept the fact that I believe that your support of these fantasies is little short of bizarre, as - clearly - you conceive mine to be.

Your posts remind me so much of one of my favourite fictional characters.

"Alice laughed: 'There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.'
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'"

As far as believing "impossible things" is concerned, I am pretty comfortable that your tolerance is set at a level 'way below my own.

You seem able to press the most extraordinarily mundane statistics - "83 elevator mechanics who had easy access to the structural columns for 9 months" - into the service of your conspiracy. It doesn't seem to worry you that elevator mechanics are rarely trained in the handling of complex munitions. They were there and - horror - a Bush once had something to do with the company they worked for.

That's a QED for you. But to me, a remote fantasy.

Incidentally, crapping on over three posts about the things I have purportedly "failed to do", doesn't actually make your case any stronger.

It still falls at the first hurdle.

Credibility.

Pericles wrote, "Please accept the fact that I believe that your support of these fantasies is little short of bizarre, ..."

The only bizarre fanatasies being pushed on this forum are those pushed by you, Yabby and PynchMe.

In fact, I refuse to believe that you actually believe what you write here.

So, when do you intend to put the arguments, that you would have us believe to be gospel from the NIST FAQ page and the Popular Mechanics page so that the rest of us can evaluate their merit?

What are you waiting for, Pericles?

You're not afraid that no sooner than you do, they will be torn tiny shreds, are you, Pericles?

---

Pericles wrote, "You seem able to press the most extraordinarily mundane statistics - '83 elevator mechanics who had easy access to the structural columns for 9 months' - into the service of your conspiracy. It doesn't seem to worry you that elevator mechanics are rarely trained in the handling of complex munitions. ..."

So how do you just happen to know that this group did not have the necessary additional training?

Pericles continued, "... They were there and - horror - a Bush once had something to do with the company they worked for.

"That's a QED for you. ..."

No, Pericles. You made the claim, "The most glaringly obvious problems are the sheer impossibility of the logistics, ..."

On this basis would therefore preclude the controlled demolition hypothesis and have us accept, instead, your supposedly more 'credible' claims, amongst others that mere air, supposedly compressed by falling floors above, somehow caused plumes of debris to have been ejected violently through the solid concrete vertical face on the corner of the North Tower as well as sever the two 6 inch supporting corner steel box columns.

However, you have not shown that it was not possible for this group of 83 men and, possibly others, given access to the Twin Towers by the Bush-family-linked Securacom, to have planted the explosives in the nine months prior to 9/11.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Pericles wrote, "Incidentally, crapping on over three posts about the things I have purportedly 'failed to do', doesn't actually make your case any stronger."

And why not, Pericles?

Do you believe that it is acceptable to make claims about my own contributions to this forum, but not be prepared to back up?

Why, for example, won't you cite a single post of mine to substantiate your claim that I have only googled and "cut'n'paste[d]" all my contributions and not put any of my own thought into them?

Why shouldn't I draw the attention of others to your dishonesty?

Why shouldn't I point out to others that you have repeatedly failed to answer straightforward questions that I have put to you?

Daggett: <"Pericles (pretending to be a complete moron) continued, "Plus perhaps some kind of sketch on how it has been kept quiet."

Pericles, what do you think the people who had organised and participated in the murder of almost 3,000 US residents would not be prepared to do in order to silence someone who wanted to reveal what had happened?">

Daggett - see that second paragraph of yours? THAT is exactly the point made on the funny site. The fella who is driving the speculation is still alive and spilling beans all over the place. You really think that it would be beyond the capacity of the alleged 9/11 conspirators to strategically place a loose step; have an elevator crash; have the bloke fall off a cliff edge on a bush walk or die of food poisoning or something ?

Anyway I'm sick of this particular conspiracy. It's been flogged and nothing more of interest. You won't even answer my question and I'm sick of posing it so - nevermind.

How about Marilyn Monroe? I love that one. Whatdya know on that?

Btw - are you one of the literati (Is that the right word or am I confusing it with scrabble?) adherents?

Oh

Sorry - just hit me - Illuminati (that correct?)

Now tell me about Marilyn hey.

PynchMe,

If you need me to point out to you the flaw in that moron's 'argument' (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) then I see little hope for you.

Anyway, have you forgotten that my post was in response to Pericles' 'argument' that there couldn't have been a conspiracy, because, if there had been, someone would have spoken up by now?

Why can't you understand that the people who conspired to murder 2,973 US residents on September 11, 2001 might feel just a little more threatened by one amongst their number who was prepared to publicly testify about their crime.

Why can't you understand that anyone, who may have had a change of heart over his/her own participation in that crime would know that the rest would stop at nothing to silence them?

So, would it really be any great surprise to you that no-one with inside knowledge of how 2,973 people were murdered have not stepped forward to reveal that knowledge?

As for asking why is Dylan Avery still alive if he is right about 9/11, it seems to me like arguing in Argentina in the 1970s': "The junta couldn't possibly be guilty of having murdered so many of its political opponents. If they did, then why are all those human rights protestors still alive?

The argument presumes that either we live under a completely repressive dictatorial regime in which all who speak out against that dictatorship are automatically murdered or imprisoned or that we live in a totally free and open democratic society.

Surely it must be obvious that there other possibilities that lie between those extremes. One would surely be one in which the Government conspires to murder some of its citizens, but it is still possible for others to speak out against those crimes without automatically facing being killed as a result.

I put it to you that that is what the US is today. Even if one can speak out as Dylan Avery has, I would suggest that it would still require considerable courage to do so.

PynchMe wrote, "Anyway I'm sick of this particular conspiracy. ..."

That's fine. As I am not expecting you to make any contributions any more worthwhile than you have in the past, I don't particularly mind if you don't hang around.

PynchMe wrote, "... It's been flogged and nothing more of interest. ..."

It's been "flogged" over and over again by our political leaders and our newspapers as justification for the war in Afghanistan and the remove of our guarantees of free speech, human rights and democratic freedoms.

Pynchme continued, "... You won't even answer my question and I'm sick of posing it so - never mind."

I have answered a good many. I mean to get around to answering a few more, but, frankly, quite a few of your questions are stupid and I think reasonable people will understand me not having been bothered.

I do understand how this must be frustrating for you, daggett.

>>So, when do you intend to put the arguments, that you would have us believe to be gospel from the NIST FAQ page and the Popular Mechanics page so that the rest of us can evaluate their merit?<<

The arguments are there for you to read for yourself. In much the same way that you keep referring the world to the 9/11 conspiracy sites.

You see, daggett, they are no more "my" arguments than the conspiracy-nut position is "your" argument. You have simply latched on to someone else's fantasy, and away you go.

We have a different view of life, that's all.

When I see a simple explanation, that does not need any suspension of disbelief, I tend to find it convincing. You reject it, because it has been promulgated by "the system" that you hate.

You see a convoluted theory based on circumstantial evidence, and immediately embrace it, simply because it purportedly exposes "the system" that you despise.

Forget for a moment that the logistics are impossible to explain ("but I am not here to completely solve the crime"), and that the "eye-witness accounts" are themselves mere speculation. You are swept along by the sheer excitement of the possibility that there has been a massive cover-up, and choose to ignore the bare realities. It's like a movie to you. Full of cloak-and-dagger machinations, and governmental duplicity. How much more exciting than real life!

I can understand how mundane and boring the rest of your life must be, that you cling to the possibility that you have uncovered a world-wide plot, and that you will single-handedly bring the world's governments to their knees with your stunning revelations.

Everyone needs a hobby.

And your hobby is "conspiracies".

I don't expect to convince you that what you are doing is a pointless waste of time, in much the same way as I couldn't dissuade someone from collecting beer mats as a hobby for the same reason.

Just don't expect me to admire your beer-mat collection.

Pericles wrote, "You see a convoluted theory based on circumstantial evidence, and immediately embrace it, ..."

Pericles, it's now over 8 years since the September 11 attacks. How do you happen to know that I "immediately embracre[d]" the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

---

Pericles wrote, "The arguments are there for you to read for yourself. ..."

I don't need to read any of that again, thank you very much. I am already more than familiar enough with all those arguments to know that any one of those can be rebutted barely at the blink of an eyelid.

Why won't you prove me wrong?

Why won't you substantiate your claim:

"It's not that your arguments need to be rebutted. Many others, in many other web sites, have done an extremely competent job at debunking each and every detail of the conspiracy theorists."

?

---

Pericles wrote, "Forget for a moment that the logistics are impossible to explain. ..."

You have not demonstrated that the logistics are impossible to explain. Please read again my post dated 28 January at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=17

---

Pericles wrote, "When I see a simple explanation, that does not need any suspension of disbelief, I tend to find it convincing. ..."

You have said this before.

So, again I ask:

Pericles, are you also 'convinc[ed]' that compressed air alone could force that plume of debris through solid concrete on the corner of the North Tower and sever the supporting columns, as shown in that video at http://candobetter.org/node/1743 http://911blogger.com/node/22236 ?

It's a perfectly simple question.

If you accept the official explanation, you will answer 'yes'.

If you reject the official explanation, you will answer 'no'.

It's most thoughtful of you to ask, daggett.

>>It's a perfectly simple question. If you accept the official explanation, you will answer 'yes'. If you reject the official explanation, you will answer 'no'.<<

But I have already made my position clear.

Crystal clear, in my view.

If you still don't get it, I doubt you ever will. At least, not until you grow out of this "aren't conspiracy theories exciting" phase.

Mostly it happens to people earlier in life. But there's no shame in having a hobby. Just don't expect everyone else to get as excited about it as you.

daggett: I hope I may answer your question too - my answer is that I can't see any reason not to accept the official version.

Just imagine a chubby in a tightly buttoned shirt. One button snaps and then the next and it's pop, pop, pop as pressure is increased on a reducing number of buttons.

There was intense heat - enough to weaken steel. It looked to me like whatever supports there were just did the same thing as there were fewer of them holding up the descending weight. That is, as Pericles summarized a way back - what we saw in the films was a result of the building/s falling down.

Since you haven't been able to even consider my question, much less answer it - because you think it's stoopid. (It was why you leap to blaming the government instead of considering other potential vested interests) - are you ready yet to tell me about Marilyn ?

If you aren't going to get onto something more interesting, such as Marilyn, I'm calling it a day on this thread.

Thanks
Pynch

Pericles refuses to answer a perfectly simple straightforward question (and only one of many). Instead he insists that he has "already made [his] position [crystal] clear [in his view]."

It's certainly "crystal clear" to me that if we were to accept his claim that each of the Twin Towers collapsed to dust in around 15 seconds, without explosives having been used, in a manner that has never occurred before or since, then a number of impossible conclusions necessarily follow.

One is that the mere force of air somehow supposedly trapped within the building must have caused those violent ejections of debris through the solid concrete face on the corner of the North Tower as captured in the stills at http://candobetter.org/files/CutterCharge2.jpg http://candobetter.org/files/CutterCharge6.jpg from the video at http://911blogger.com/node/22236 http://candobetter.org/node/1743

Pericles asks us to accept that his view as "straightforward and factual" but is not prepared to defend on this forum the conclusions that follow from his view.

Pericles wrote, "If you still don't get it, I doubt you ever will. ..."

I somehow doubt that I would be altogether alone there, Pericles.

Pericles continued, "... At least, not until you grow out of this "aren't conspiracy theories exciting" phase. ... (rant, blah, blah, rant)."

You have already put that 'argument' several times before.

How many more times do you believe it necessary to repeat it?

---

PynchMe wrote, "Just imagine a chubby in a tightly buttoned shirt. One button snaps and then the next and it's pop, pop, pop ..."

As I asked of Pericles, before, in response to his "explanation" that "it's a building collapsing":

If it was all that easy to explain, why do you think they went to all the trouble and expense to set up the NIST (so-called) investigation?

Pericles, IMHO daggett should pay you for an accurate and so far
free psychology consultation. But people are commonly in denial etc.

Daggett, you probably never will get it, it would be boring, but
the real problem when those buildings collapsed, was once again,
good old Govt bungling.

When planes crash, there is a designated Govt authority, legislated
for and funded, to have a team of experts on the scene within hours,
to investigate. With buildings collapsing, there was simply no
such authority. The wheels of Govt never do turn too quickly,
so it took months and months, just to pass legislation and organise
funding, for a Govt vehicle to be set up to do exactly that.

Meantime the streets of NY were a mess, debris needed clearing,
private enterprise works efficiently and quickly, stuff was carted
away for dumping or recycling, tens of thousands of truckloads.

The whole conspiracy story that you raise, came much much later.
Not much of signifance happens these days, without somebody coming
up with a conspiracy theory, it is seemingly a large industry,
with many making a good living from it.

The growth of the internet would have seen to it that their
business soars, for now they can market their wares globally

Yabby wrote, "Daggett, you probably never will get it, ..."

I'll "get it" when you present a logical case based on the evidence. This hasn't happened yet and your latest contribution has not changed that.

Yabby (yet again) reveals his ignorance of the most basic facts about 9/11:

"When planes crash, there is a designated Govt authority, legislated for and funded, to have a team of experts on the scene within hours, to investigate."

It took 441 days for the Bush administration to set up the 9/11 Commission. What other investigation was there?

Yabby further reveals his ignorance:

"... With buildings collapsing, there was simply no such authority."

There was FEMA and then there was NIST. Furthermore, Underwriters Limited a private body, funded by the Insurance industry was responsible for testing the strength of building materials. (Whistleblower Kevin Ryan has )

Yabby makes a sweeping generalisation, "The wheels of Govt never do turn too quickly, ..."

Well they sure moved quickly to announce who was to blame and to begin the invasion of Afghanistan to bring them to justice, to remove constitutional guarantees of human rights of US citizens and, in general, to push through the geopolitical and economic agenda of PNAC.

Yabby continued, "... so it took months and months, just to pass legislation and organise funding, for a Govt vehicle to be set up to do exactly that."

They tried not to have an inquiry at all. It was only due to the persistence of the four widows known as the Jersey Girls that the 9/11 Commission was held at all.

Yabby wrote, "Meantime the streets of NY were a mess, debris needed clearing, private enterprise works efficiently and quickly, stuff was carted away for dumping or recycling, tens of thousands of truckloads."

A likely story, Yabby.

Of course, it couldn't possibly have been to remove evidence that would have confirmed (or refuted) the controlled demolition hypothesis, could it?

Would you have believed Condoleezza Rice when she lied that the WTC dust posed no health risk to first responders and that even wearing a mask was unnecessary?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Yabby wrote, "The whole conspiracy story that you raise, came much much later."

In fact, on the very day, some people knew that the Government story did not add up. If the newsmedia had done its job properly, that would have been immediately apparent to the broader public. However the mainstream newsmedia failed to ask the hard questions and point out the inconsistencies and absurdities of the Government's case.

That job was left to private individuals.

---

Thanks, Yabby, for once again having shed so much light on this issue.

Could you now, perhaps, turn your attention to my question of 21 January?

"So, let me know if 'the clear evidence where the connections had failed, between the truss beams and the columns' or just computer models like those used by NIST to 'explain' the 'collapse' which can be made to do whatever the computer programmers tell them to do.

You are simply regurgitating the same old tosh, daggett. Shame on me for helping you to continue to air your ridiculous theories.

Here's a suggestion: instead of infecting every thread you can get your hands on with this garbage, why not continue the "main" thread you began all those months ago?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166

After 498 posts, spread over more than seven months between September 2008 to April 2009, you finally realized that you were talking to yourself.

Eight out of the last ten posts were written by you, and are entirely indistinguishable from the drivel you are posting here.

One of the two non-daggett posts in that set was from CJ Morgan, "Still channelling my late ex-mother-in-law I see, Jimmy", undoubtedly the only intelligible comment to be found amongst those ten.

You can flounce and posture your life away, daggett, and pretend that no-one is answering your ridiculous "questions" because they secretly admit that you have been right all along. But I'll play along no more, sorry for that.

A final piece of gratuitous advice: self-promotion works only when you use it to demonstrate how smart/handsome/clever/intelligent/entertaining etc. you are. It doesn't work quite so well when all you do is highlight your gullibility.

Pericles, if I am repetetive, it has been necessitated by your repetitive techniques of evasion and obfuscation.

Pericles wrote, "Shame on me for helping you to continue to air your ridiculous theories."

Actually, Pericles, I don't need your help to air my theories and I very much doubt if that was your purpose in prolonging this debate. There are plenty of other outlets on the Internet on which I can express my opinion, not least of all on my own blog to which a link is provided at the bottom of every post.

I would have been perfectly happy to have this debate finished quickly as did the debate over the article "Scaling back in Afghanistan would jeopardise security of the US" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9500&page=4

However, if you insist on pushing the lie that Islamists based in Afghanistan were the perpetrators of 9/11, when not one single person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured after 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan and even the FBI admits it does not heve enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with 9/11 then I feel I have not only the right to show that up for the lie that it is, but an obligation to do so.

Sorry, I'm not going to bite.

>>However, if you insist on pushing the lie that Islamists based in Afghanistan were the perpetrators of 9/11, when not one single person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured after 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan and even the FBI admits it does not heve enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with 9/11 then I feel I have not only the right to show that up for the lie that it is, but an obligation to do so.<<

I'm not even going to bother to point out that at no time have I "pushed [that] lie", nor to enquire from which orifice you plucked this lunatic concept.

Indeed, if you can find even one post in which I have referred to "Islamists based in Afghanistan", I'll send $100 to your favourite charity.

You're just weird.

OK, thanks, Pericles.

That's made it all perfectly clear.

9/11 was not perpetrated by the Bush administration.

Nor, contrary to the claims of the Bush administration, was 9/11 perpetrated by Islamist extremists based in Afghanistan.

So, who did it then?

The Mafia?

Insurance fraudsters?

Israel?

Aliens?

Pericles has refused to provide even one example of a post of mine that consists only of cutting and pasting other peoples' words without my having put any of my own thought into it.

This hasn't stopped him from repeating his unfounded claim on other forums. See Pericles' latest 'contribution' to the forum "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" as an example:

"Your tactics, which consist of endlessly cutting and pasting from other people's conspiracy sites, are designed to kill any discussion with tedious repetition." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034#162306)

Still wittering on, I see, daggett.

>>Pericles has refused to provide even one example of a post of mine that consists only of cutting and pasting other peoples' words without my having put any of my own thought into it.<<

Do you really, really think that anyone cares?

Are you expecting a sudden rush of sympathy, as the scales fall from everyone's eyes, and they cry with one voice "you're right, daggett, oh so right. That Pericles is nothing but a fraud. Oh, what a silly, deluded person I have been not to believe you in the past... I'll not doubt you again, I swear..."

(They do actually go on a little longer than this, but they are so choked with emotion, their words are practically incomprehensible...)

What a waste of space you are.

Note how Pericles has, yet again, failed to substantiate his claim that I don't put any of my own thought into my posts (which, in itself, I consider a ploy on his part to avoid discussing the issues).

Pericles wrote, "Do you really, really think that anyone cares?"

Obviously you care enough to want to spend so much of your time doing everything you possibly can, that is, other than to argue with facts, to discedit me.

It's important to me, and I expect a few others that I be regarded as a great deal more credible than, say, yourself or Christopher.

If you were ever to substantiate any of your many accusations against me, then, perhaps my credibility would deservedly suffer.

But, of course, that has never happened and I don't expect it ever will.

Who exactly do you think you are talking to daggett?

>>Note how Pericles has, yet again, failed to substantiate his claim that I don't put any of my own thought into my posts (which, in itself, I consider a ploy on his part to avoid discussing the issues).<<

It's just you and me here on this thread. And possibly your puppet Arjay.

Talk about delusions of adequacy.

>>It's important to me, and I expect a few others that I be regarded as a great deal more credible than, say, yourself or Christopher.<<

(Christopher? Who he?)

Of course it is important to you, daggett. But I strongly suggest that the "few others" you refer to may be long gone. Bored to tears, probably.

But here's a thing.

So long as you continue prattling on about this or that conspiracy, or New World Orders and similar garbage, your credibility will stay firmly where it is now.

Totally absent.

Take it or leave it, it's your problem and not mine.

>>If you were ever to substantiate any of your many accusations against me, then, perhaps my credibility would deservedly suffer.<<

Similarly, if you were ever able to substantiate any of your many conspiracy theories with anything remotely describable as "evidence", then your credibility would improve dramatically, and mine disappear.

But the fact is, you can't. So it won't.

I just hope that when the day dawns upon which you relalize that the time you have wasted on these fantasies can never be regained, you find some way to come to process the fact.

Apart from anything else, what will you find to occupy your waking hours?

Pericles,

What's the more substantive issue here?

Whether or not people other than you and me are reading this, or ...

Your dishonest claim that I don't put my own thought into the posts I make here and on other forums?

Now, I know for a fact that I put a lot of thought into all of my posts.

So, if you wish to claim to the contrary, then I think I am entitled to have you substantiate that claim.

But you have not and in spite of that repeat that accusation elsewhere (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034#162306).

---

In any case, Pericles, if you are so sure that no-one else is here, then why are you here?

It couldn't possibly be that you hope to make me seem a fool to others, by forcing me to argue with one (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034#162306)?

You do ask such tough questions, daggett.

>>Pericles, What's the more substantive issue here? Whether or not people other than you and me are reading this, or ... Your dishonest claim that I don't put my own thought into the posts I make here and on other forums?<<

Gee, I don't know.

Can I phone a friend?

>>Now, I know for a fact that I put a lot of thought into all of my posts. So, if you wish to claim to the contrary, then I think I am entitled to have you substantiate that claim.<<

Entitled, daggett?

You haven't substantiated a single one of the fantasies that you burble on about so tediously. What on earth makes you think you are "entitled" to anything?

Your "research" consists entirely of scouring the internet for the latest twisted take on perfectly straightforward and explicable events, and repeating them here ad nauseam. Your idea of substantiation is providing a URL to some obscure nutter's creative perversion of circumstances, and to then stand back and expect the world to say "ooh, daggett, you're so clever and perceptive".

It is obviously some kind of ego trip for you, to see your name associated with such "exciting" interpretations of history. Your defence, when questioned, is simply to restate your case with an avalanche of irrelevance, then get on your high horse and accuse others of "ad hominem" attacks when the ridiculous nature of your theories is pointed out to you.

>>In any case, Pericles, if you are so sure that no-one else is here, then why are you here?<<

So that we can have this quiet conversation about your annoying irrelevance without being distracted.

Why are you here?

Pericles, I am not the person who claims that this discussion is pointless.

So, how about, instead of endlessly repeating your ad hominem attacks against me, substantiating the claims you have made about the issues at hand, as I requested above on 26 January (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=16), so that this discussion can move forward?

Classic, daggett, Classic.

It is of course a standard ploy for conspiracy nuts to say "here is my stupid idea, prove me wrong". It's like a creationist handing you a fossil, and saying "I reckon this is only 3,000 years old. Prove it isn't"

The only response to which is "why tf should I?"

And you come up with the same old song, daggett. Why should it be up to me to sift through your garbage, yet again? I have said all that is necessary to explain to you that the theories that you are peddling do not, and will not, hold water. They are just a hotchpotch of circumstance, happenstance and wild assumptions. When challenged to suggest how, in this wide world of ours, such a conspiracy could be carried out, all I get is:

>>I am not here to completely solve the crime<<

Which is daggett-speak for "I haven't a clue, but I can't possibly admit that to you, now can I?"

If I may quote your very own words:

>>It's clear that someone determined to uphold a lie will never be 'convinced'.<<

You have demonstrated time and again your gullibility for any old story that washes around, so obviously nothing that I can say has the slightest chance to persuade you that you are barking.

Sorry, that should read, barking up the wrong tree.

The only way you are ever going to get this out of your system is to admit to yourself that 1+1=2, and stop trying to force fit it into a symplectic matrix that gives you the answer 42.

It's a bit like alcoholism. The patient has to realize for themselves that they need to be cured. Until then, all exhortations to "pull yourself together, man" fall on deaf ears.

Are you getting the picture yet?

Pericles wrote, "I have said all that is necessary ..."

Does this mean that you have already explained how fire alone caused WTC 7 to lose all its structural strength in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0)?

So, are you going to let Arjay know that has lost his bet (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034#162380) with you and that he now has to write out that $10,000 cheque for victims of the Haitian earthquake?

Dang. Saw this thread at the top of the list and thought we might have a new conspiracy on the boil or at least another oldie that's interesting; like Marilyn. Or how about Michael Jackson. Surely we can think of some way to turn him into a CIA operative or summin.

Daggett I'm getting the urge to reach through my puter screen to shake you. We talked about the stoopid fire and collapse stuff a way long time ago. Puhleeze - it's time to move on.

Pynchme,

You're welcome to "move on" from this thread any time you like. No-one is forcing you to read any of this.

Since you are so interested in conspiracy theories about the deaths of Michael Jackson and Marilyn Monroe, why don't you start forum discussion of your own?

Pynchme wrote, "We talked about the stoopid fire and collapse stuff a way long time ago."

Where was it ever explained how fire alone caused the complete collapse of WTC 7 in only 6.5 sec, and with the first 2.25 seconds of collapse at free-fall acceleration?

If that hasn't been explained, then why shouldn't the hypothesis of a controlled demolition be investigated?

After a fashion, daggett.

>>Pericles wrote, "I have said all that is necessary ..." Does this mean that you have already explained how fire alone caused WTC 7 to lose all its structural strength in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds<<

It means that I find absolutely no reason to attempt an "explanation" of pure conjecture.

How do you know that WTC7 lost all its structural strength "in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds"?

Once you can tell me that, without either resorting to a "cut 'n' paste" from a conspiracy web site, or simply hiding behind yet another pointless URL, I will explain to you how it could have been caused by fire.

Until that point, we are simply dealing with a conjecture. And by definition, there is no argument against conjecture - everyone is free to indulge in them to their heart's content.

The main difference between us in approaching the topic is that when I see your conjecture (explosives caused the building's collapse), I try to fit that hypothesis into the real world. The one we live in, every day, that is filled with real people going about their business in a totally ordinary way.

To plant, then coordinate the detonation of, the necessary "hundreds of tonnes" of explosives necessary (Neil Harrit's figures, not mine) would take an organizational genius that only exists in Hollywood movie scripts.

That's why arguing the toss about free-fall speeds is entirely irrelevant.

Think of it this way, daggett. If you can answer the following simple "police procedural" questions without making me laugh out loud, we might be able to continue the discussion.

Means. Motive. Opportunity.

However, I think you might be stuck for an answer to any of them. As you say each time you are challenged:

>>I am not here to completely solve the crime<<

Fact is, you couldn't even make it to first base with any of these three "starter" questions. You simply pick a random theory out of the air, then build a story on top of it.

Easy - and probably fun - to do. But pointless.

Pericles wrote,

"How do you know that WTC7 lost all its structural strength 'in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds'?"

Because, Pericles, WTC 7 was standing at the commencement of that 2.25 second period. Therefore the structural strength had to have been there at that point in time. The fact that it fell at free fall acceleration through 8 floors in 2.25 seconds must mean that all the strength in those 8 floors that was there at the commencement of the fall must have all been lost at the end of that period. If not the acceleration would have been observed to have been measurably less than free fall acceleration.

As both Arjay and David Chandler have said, that is Year 10 Physics.

Pericles wrote, "To plant, then coordinate the detonation of, the necessary 'hundreds of tonnes' of explosives necessary (Neil Harrit's figures, not mine) would take an organizational genius that only exists in Hollywood movie scripts."

What rubbish!

Firstly the principles of building demolition would have been well understood. Of course a lot of care would have had to have been taken to have ensured that the preparations would not have been noticed by the wrong people and recognised at the time for what they were, but to argue that therefore it was impossible is an entirely different matter.

Pericles continued, "That's why arguing the toss about free-fall speeds is entirely irrelevant."

You have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would not have been possible.

In contrast, my understanding of the laws of physics tells me that it would have been impossible for WTC 7 to have collapsed in the way it was observed to have collapsed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0) through the effects of fire alone.

So, how about proving myself, Arjay and David Chandler wrong on that question in order to win your $10,000 bet with Arjay?

You see, daggett, this is a classic symptom of the problem you are having with reality.

>>"How do you know that WTC7 lost all its structural strength 'in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds'?"

Because, Pericles, WTC 7 was standing at the commencement of that 2.25 second period.<<

In the millisecond before your "2.25 second period", those eight floors had already lost all their structural strength, and were on the verge of collapse for that reason.

And this.

>>Firstly the principles of building demolition would have been well understood. Of course a lot of care would have had to have been taken to have ensured that the preparations would not have been noticed by the wrong people and recognised at the time for what they were, but to argue that therefore it was impossible is an entirely different matter.<<

Well understood, by whom? A lot of care was taken, by whom?

You haven't even begun to make a case for the plausibility of your scenario. You really must get a grip - this is not a Hollywood script, this is about real people in real situations.

The fact that it might not be theoretically "impossible" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, suddenly make it possible. Hollywood works on the principle of "suspension of disbelief". They rely on it for practically every scene in the "Die Hard" series.

But any eight year-old with half a brain can see that - although it is "theoretically" possible to "throw yourself off the thirty-fifth floor of a building that’s about to explode, only tied to the roof with a fire hose", it is still pure fantasy.

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/die-hard-top-20-moments.html

>>You have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would not have been possible.<<

Correction: you have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would have been possible.

And are unlikely to.

And let's keep a sense of reality on this as well, while we are about it.

>>So, how about proving myself, Arjay and David Chandler wrong on that question in order to win your $10,000 bet with Arjay?<<

As you should be aware, Arjay has not yet sorted out who will decide the winner of this bet, so it is still a figment of his imagination, like everything else.

And if you think David Chandler has a shred of credibility in all this, think again

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-chandler.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-will-david-chandler-fix-his-errors.html

"I probably divided by 2 instead of multiplying by 2 inside the radical. I probably shouldn't do these things in my head."

That's no really a good look, is it? We're supposed to believe someone who makes such fundamental errors as multiplying two numbers together, instead of dividing one into the other?

I particularly noted this point made about Chandler.

"Chandler mentions that the movie which turned him into a 9-11 Troofer was Eric Hufschmid's Painful Deceptions"

Not *this* Eric Hufschmid, by any chance?

http://www.erichufschmid.net/StopNaziCoverup.html

Reminds me of one of my favourite poems:

""You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses,"
Then the pig got up and slowly walked away."

http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiPIGINEB4.html

Have a great day.

Pericles wrote:

"In the millisecond before your '2.25 second period', those eight floors had already lost all their structural strength, and were on the verge of collapse for that reason."

Why "the millisecond before"?

Whatever point in time it was that the strength was lost is the point at which the collapse would have commenced. To claim otherwise is to claim that the huge mass of WTC 7 would have remained suspended in defiance of the laws of gravity.

Whether all the structural strength on all 8 floors was lost progressively floor-by-floor within that 2.25 second interval or virtually instantaneously in a time interval of 1 millisecond at the very outset, as you now claim, you has still failed to explain how it could have been caused by fire alone.

Pericles wrote "[building demolition techniques are] well understood, by whom? ..."

The US military and intelligence has expertise in almost every conceivable aspect of causing death and destruction including, for example, the sabotage of bridges. The complete destruction of a steel framed high rise buildings would not have been that far removed from that field of knowledge, even if it may have been outside of their normal contingencies prior to 2001. I don't see how acquiring that additional knowledge from others who well understand those technques would have posed any inordinate difficulties for them with all their money and resources.

Do you?

Pericles then attempts to imply that the relatively mundane task of placing the necessary demolition explosives within the three WTC buildings -- obtaining the cooperation of the building management, providing plausible justification (e.g. upgrading the lift system) for the presence of the saboteurs that would conceal from casual onlookers their true purpose and having the building security ensure that no-one gets close enough to see what is really going on -- somehow is equivalent to the spectacular, daring and almost impossible feats performed in the "Die Hard" movies.

(tobecontinued)

(tobecontinuedfromabove)

Pericles wrote, "you have not shown how the preparations to demolish WTC 7 would have been possible."

If it has not been conclusively shown that that would have been impossible then, logically, they would have been "possible".

What has been shown to be impossible is the claim that fire alone could have caused the total destruction of WTC 7.

Only a proper investigation of the controlled demolitions hypothesis as has been demanded by the 1049 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) will be able to establish one way or the other whether or not it was impossible.

Pericles then attempts to imply that David Chandler has no credibility because:

1. Once he made the mistake of multiplying by 2 where he should have divided by 2 and publicly admitted having done so; and

2. He once found persuasive a movie made by someone who happened to be a Holocaust denier.

I don't consider that these require further comment.

I think you may be losing the plot here, daggett.

>>Why "the millisecond before"? Whatever point in time it was that the strength was lost is the point at which the collapse would have commenced<<

Errrr... exactly. So, the "millisecond before" it reached the point where the collapse commenced, it was sufficiently strong to keep the structure together. A millisecond later, it wasn't.

The reduction in strength would not be instantaneous.

Think of it this way. The millisecond before Gruber falls from the Nakatomi building, there is sufficient cohesion between his hand, Holly's Rolex and Holly herself. A millisecond later, he was on his way down.

>>you has still failed to explain how it could have been caused by fire alone.<<

One mystery at a time, daggett. Given that you're still floundering around "instantaneous" "2.25 seconds" or "gradual", I have nothing to work on.

Let me know when you decide.

>>The US military and intelligence has expertise in almost every conceivable aspect of causing death and destruction<<

You are suggesting this was a military operation? Or an "intelligence" operation?

How does that work, in the real world?

How do you persuade a bunch of grunts to effect the mass murder of their fellow-citizens?

Even in Die Hard the villains were foreign.

>>the relatively mundane task of placing the necessary demolition explosives within the three WTC buildings<<

Mundane, daggett? In your dreams.

How many tonnes were needed? How did they get into the building? Do you have even the vaguest notion of basic building security?

Your idea that this was all accomplished by a mysterious bunch of lift engineers, who were also saboteurs, the whole thing covered by bogus security guards, is very much the stuff of action movie scripts.

No-one noticed. At all.

Or (and I can almost hear your brain working on this) some people did notice.

But they have since disappeared.

Yep, that would be consistent with the rest of the fantasy.

Oh, I almost forgot.

>>Pericles then attempts to imply that David Chandler has no credibility because:
1. Once he made the mistake of multiplying by 2 where he should have divided by 2 and publicly admitted having done so; and
2. He once found persuasive a movie made by someone who happened to be a Holocaust denier.
I don't consider that these require further comment.<<

Well you wouldn't, would you.

By your standards, anyone who confuses multiplication and division is a credible mathematician.

By your standards, anyone who finds the arguments made by a fruit-loop neo-nazi who denies historical facts is a credible source of inspiration.

This goes a long way towards explaining your ready acceptance of any passing theory that supports your prejudice against anything that represents what Cartman would call "authoriteh".

Have a great day.

Pericles obfuscates, "Given that you're still floundering around 'instantaneous' '2.25 seconds' or 'gradual', I have nothing to work on."

No-one's floundering but you.

You're the one who introduced the highly implausible hypothesis that the structural strength in all 8 floors was lost in one millisecond (or what most people would consider 'instantaneously').

I am not the one who is attempting to deny the video evidence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0) that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds.

Whether you choose to believe that the strength was all lost at the very outset or progressively floor by floor throughout that interval, you have failed to explain how that could have been caused by fire alone.

Pericles asks, "You are suggesting this was a military operation? Or an 'intelligence' operation?"

Most likely both. Obviously the destruction of a building goes beyond what is strictly considered 'intelligence'.

What is your point?

Pericles asked, "How many tonnes were needed?"

As many as it took.

Pericles further asks, "How did they get into the building?"

See my previous post.

Pericles asks, "Do you have even the vaguest notion of basic building security?"

Anyone who has entered tall buildings on numerous occasions, as I have, would have some idea. What is your point?

Pericles wrote, "Your idea that this was all accomplished by a mysterious bunch of lift engineers, who were also saboteurs, ..."

That is seems a plausible scenario to me. Why can't saboteurs be trained to also be lift engineers or vice versa?

Pericles continued, "... the whole thing covered by bogus security guards, ..."

Not necessarily bogus. Why shouldn't it have been possible for personnel, either willing to to turn a blind or to actively collaborate, to have been selected?

Pericles, "... is very much the stuff of action movie scripts."

Some "action movie scripts" are based upon real world events.

Pericles wrote, "No-one noticed. At all."

How do you know, Pericles?

So, nothing new here, daggett.

Just the same old "if I saw it in Die Hard, it can be done" routine.

>>Pericles wrote, "No-one noticed. At all." How do you know, Pericles?<<

Oh come on, daggett.

If somebody even thought they might have noticed something - even if they were in Yamhill, Oregon at the time - you would have told us by now.

>>You're the one who introduced the highly implausible hypothesis that the structural strength in all 8 floors was lost in one millisecond<<

Correction: this is entirely your fabrication.

Let me quote you.

>>Does this mean that you have already explained how fire alone caused WTC 7 to lose all its structural strength in those 8 floors in 2.25 seconds<<

I merely pointed out that it would have already, over a period of some time, been in the process of losing strength. Therefore, in the millisecond before its collapse, it would still - by definition - have had sufficient structural integrity to keep the floors supported.

But only just. A millisecond later the fire destroyed this last teensy vestige of support and down she came.

A child of eight could grasp the principle here.

Here's a f'rinstance. If you were to hang on to a windowsill above a fifty metre drop, the "structural integrity" of your fingers would be sufficient to keep you hanging there for a while.

(I'm quite enjoying the images this conjures up. Aren't you?).

But after a finite amount of time, you'd lose your grip.

One millisecond before you fell, you would be safe. If someone had pulled you back through the window at that point, you'd be safe. But one millisecond later, the structural integrity of your fingernails would be sufficiently reduced and cause you to fall.

One key point I notice that you very carefully avoided, by the way.

In your scenario, a combination of army and "intelligence" operatives conspire to murder thousands of fellow-Americans.

Do you have any precedent for such brutality in history of the the US?

How unfortunate for NIST that Pericles was not able to suggest to them some years ago a man hanging by one finger as an analogy for fire inside WTC 7 being able to destroy all at once, right across the length and breadth of WTC 7 on 8 floors all the structural strength in all those supporting steel columns.

That would have certainly saved them an enormous amount of trouble, time and expense.

Pericles wrote, "A child of eight could grasp the principle here."

You might be right there, Pericles.

But I think, by the time that child reached, the age of, say 15, that child's understanding of how the world works would have improved somewhat.

---

Pericles, what did I ever write that could possibly construed as remotely equivalent to saying "if I saw it in Die Hard, it can be done"?

Pericles wrote, "Do you have any precedent for such brutality in history of the the US?"

This is likely arguing that there can never be a first time. Perhaps there has never been brutality on this scale, but there have been plenty of instances of brutality by the US military against US citizens before 2001.

---

I will deal with the other nonsense and evasions later.

Your persistence in misunderstanding a simple concept does you enormous credit, daggett. Clinging to your brain-dead theories in the face of such simple explanations takes considerable courage, that's for sure.

>>How unfortunate for NIST that Pericles was not able to suggest to them some years ago a man hanging by one finger as an analogy for fire inside WTC 7 being able to destroy all at once, right across the length and breadth of WTC 7 on 8 floors all the structural strength in all those supporting steel columns.<<

To lack a basic awareness that fire does not destroy anything "all at once" is, frankly, breathtaking in a mature adult. My only excuse for you would be that you are so wrapped up in this explosion idea, that you fail to see even the most obvious of alternatives.

But you really cannot have it both ways, daggett.

>>But I think, by the time that child reached, the age of, say 15, that child's understanding of how the world works would have improved somewhat.<<

The same, I suggest, should apply to your own perception of what is, and is not, realistic in this busy world of ours. By the age of fifteeen, that child's awareness of the difference between what he sees on the screen in Die Hard, and what actually happens in the real world - an "understanding of how the world works", in your own words - should be fairly well developed.

Sadly, yours has yet to reach this level.

>>Pericles, what did I ever write that could possibly construed as remotely equivalent to saying "if I saw it in Die Hard, it can be done"?<<

Your "elevator mechanics planted hundreds of tonnes of explosives" scenario, for a start. There's more, of course. But that's where it all comes together.

>>Perhaps there has never been brutality on this scale, but there have been plenty of instances of brutality by the US military against US citizens before 2001.<<

Ok, forget about the scale for a moment. Try "the deliberate, premeditated murder of a number of innocent US citizens"

Any offers?

Pericles wrote, "Ok, forget about the scale for a moment. Try 'the deliberate, premeditated murder of a number of innocent US citizens'"

Pericles, if the US military had been found guilty of the premeditated murder of a large number of their own citizens it would have resulted in a political upheaval.

So, in all likelihood, they would have concealed their tracks very well if that had occurred.

So, I don't see how the absence of a proven example automatically disproves the hypothesis that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US military.

Nevertheless, it appears likely that the Oklohama City bombing could have been one example, because the power of the blast seems much too great to have been caused by the fertilizer bomb allegedly placed there by Timothy McVeigh (but I have mislaid that particular article for now).

Immediately after the 9/11 attack, Condoleezza Rice lied to the First Responders that it was safe to breathe in the toxic dust around the WTC causing hundreds to since die (http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-08-24/nyc-firemen.html) and ruining the health of thousands more.

How is that different from premeditated murder?

At the Kent State University in May 1970 National Guardsmen murdered four anti-war protestors.

In 1914, National Guardsmen murdered 20 people including children in a premeditated attack on a camp of striking miners in Ludlow Colorado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre).

In 1962, the US Joint Chiefs of staff planned to launch terrorist attacks including assassinations on mainland US and hijackings (whether real or staged) in Operation Northwoods, but were overruled by President Kennedy.

In the 1960's four of the most effective, charismatic and incorruptible leaders in US history -- JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK -- were almost certainly murdered by Intelligence Agencies and the US military. In the case of MLK, as I wrote earlier, a jury in a civil trial in 1999 found that the US army, including sniper teams, had participated in a conspiracy to murder Martin Luther King.

So, I would suggest there is abundant evidence that US political and military leaders are capable of deliberately killing their own citizens.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

And there is vastly more evidence of US military killing in cold blood the citizens of other countries.

Let's not forget that JFK, alone, several times stopped the US military from launching a premeditated nuclear strike on the USSR that would almost certainly have led to the deaths of millions of US citizens as well as tens of millions of citizens of the USSR.

---

Other material which may be of interest includes:

CYBER-BULLYING, CENSORSHIP, 9/11 TRUTH AND LARVATUS PRODEO
(published 29 Dec 09, updated 3 Mar 10)

In the last three months of 2009 a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo, about the controversy surrounding 9/11, turned into the online equivalent of a lynching. On 28 December at the point at which the intended victim (myself) was able to turn the tables on his tormentors, the moderators abruptly closed the discussion. I have been barred from contributing to that site ever since, as if I had been blamed for the abuses of others.
(For more, go to http://candobetter.org/node/1741)

The Lavartus Prodeo 'debate', the size of which is 5.6Mb and which consists of 1979 posts, can be found at http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/#comment-846368 . A related discussion is to be found at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/01/monday-message-board-165/comment-page-1/#comment-256856 .

That's not exactly a tsunami of evidence, is it daggett?

More like a thimbleful.

Prefaced as always with the conspiracy-nut get-out clause...

>>...in all likelihood, they would have concealed their tracks very well...<<

The lack of evidence being, of course, conclusive evidence of a cover-up.

I'm a little surprised that you led with that, knowing how dumb it sounds. Never mind, What else do you have.

>>it appears likely that the Oklohama City bombing could have been one example<<

Yeah, right. And the motivation behind that one was...

"President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno planned the bombing as part of a massive anti-gun campaign"

Or alternatively.

"President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno planned the bombing to enable them to enact antiterrorism legislation while using McVeigh as a scapegoat."

Hmmm. Persuasive.

>>At the Kent State University in May 1970 National Guardsmen murdered four anti-war protestors.<<

Premeditated mass murder? Don't think so.

>>In 1914, National Guardsmen murdered 20 people including children in a premeditated attack on a camp of striking miners in Ludlow Colorado<<

The attack was not premeditated.

"The miners, fearing for the safety of their families, set out to flank the militia positions. A firefight soon broke out. The fighting raged for the entire day."

Not remotely comparable.

>>In 1962, the US Joint Chiefs of staff planned to launch terrorist attacks including assassinations on mainland US and hijackings (whether real or staged) in Operation Northwoods, but were overruled by President Kennedy.<<

That's supposed to be evidence? Something that didn't happen? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

>>In the 1960's four of the most effective, charismatic and incorruptible leaders in US history... were almost certainly murdered by Intelligence Agencies and the US military<<

"Almost certainly", daggett. That's the catchphrase of conspiracy nerds everywhere, isn't it. Coupled inevitably with "prove me wrong".

>>I would suggest there is abundant evidence that US political and military leaders are capable of deliberately killing their own citizens.<<

Suggest away, daggett. That's what you do best.

But once again, when it comes to providing anything even vaguely approaching evidence, you fall way, way short.

Note how Pericles has not acknowledged my point that Condoleezza Rice, who is implicated in the crime of 9/11 by a mountain of damning evidence (e.g. her attempt to cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani secret servies, the ISI had wired $100,000 to 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Ata days before the hijacking) lied to the first responders claiming that the toxic dust of the collapsed WTC towers posed no health risk, thereby condemning at least many hundred to die and thousands more to debilitating ill health.

I asked Pericles "How is that different from premeditated murder?"

And he has not answered.

---

The fact is America is formally a democracy and formally under the rule of law. So, it is not easy for government agencies to murder large numbers of US citizens with complete impunity.

Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that they have, on many occasions murdered their citizens, although not, until 11 September 2001, on a scale that approaches that committed by military dictatorships. However, that could change all too easily, particularly if the citizens of the US are lulled into placing undeserved trust in the US Government and its agencies by the likes of Pericles.

The fact that Rice knowingly condemned hundreds of first responders to die would surely add weight to the hypothosis that she would also have been quite capable of participating in the planning of and the facilitation of the 9/11 terrorist attack that resulted in the deaths on that day of 2.973 US residents on that day.

Wow, you really are clutching at straws, daggett.

>>Note how Pericles has not acknowledged my point that Condoleezza Rice... lied to the first responders claiming that the toxic dust of the collapsed WTC towers posed no health risk, thereby condemning at least many hundred to die and thousands more to debilitating ill health. I asked Pericles "How is that different from premeditated murder?"<<

I think you'll find this film clip on yourconspiracytube:

[Cut to Condoleezza Rice's Office]

CR (for it is she): Is ze plen verkink?

Flunkey: Yez Miz Rice, sho' nuff is. All dem Yankee financialists blown to de four win's

CR: All of zem gone? (rubs hands with glee). Now for ze final zolution. Kill all ze snoopers and noseyparkingz. No vun must be left alife to tell ze tale

Flunkey: How we gonna do dat, Miz Rice? Dere's all dem firemen an' perlicemen an' sich...

CR: Tell zem... tell zem it iss safe to breathe in ze dust. Tell zem... it iss good for zem. In only ten years, zey vill all be dead. (Throws back head and opens mouth, showing a full set of shiny-white, highly-polished pointy fangs...)

BWAAAHAA-HAAA-HAAAA!

[end of clip]

The URL you pointed me to described one death from cancer, and three others who have tumours. Nothing whatsoever links these sicknesses to 9/11. Nothing at all that supports the headline "Hundreds of 9/11 first responders die of cancer", or that "85 per cent of them are suffering from lung diseases".

I thought it only polite to ignore your "point", on the basis that the facts could only be an embarrassment to you.

Fine.

Pericles would have us believe that the claims of deaths of hundreds first responders and chronic ill health of hundreds more are are all invented and that, presumably, Condoleezza Rice acted decently and ethically by telling them, contrary to warnings by health authorities, that it was perfectly save to breathe in the WTC dust laden with asbestos, PCBs and all kinds of toxic metals, etc.

We'll come back to you on that one, Pericles.

---

Note Pericles' continued silence on Rice's attempt to cover up the wiring of $100,000 to 9/11 Hijacker by the head of Pakistan's secret intelligences service ISI days before 11 Sepetember 2001.

Arjay wrote on the Forum "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=10

"[Pericles] has assured me in the past that he has viewed the site [http://ae911truth.org] and it was all conjecture."

What you write of has been a very common experience for me. People, usually people in whom I have placed my trust, will abuse that trust by emphatically asserting that they accept that official account of some hotly contentious historical event is true (or alternatively that the alternative hypothesis is garbage, which is a dishonest, but slightly more plausible way of saying the same thing) and making the claim, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, that they have fully studied all the evidence. They demand, sometimes resorting to subtle techniques of moral blackmail, that we put our trust in them and find clever means to discourage us from studying the issues for ourselves.

Usually when you probe more deeply you find that they have not studied the issue properly. Sometimes you learn that they have, which for me only makes matters even worse, when the evidence is so open and shut.

On the JFK assassination question, people who have claimed to have studied all the evidence of the JKF assassination and who have arrived at the conclusion that the official story was, indeed, correct and that Oswald was the sole killer of JFK include:

* The late Alistair Cooke whose "Letter from America" featured every week on on ABC radio until his death in 2004,

* The late Norman Mailer (who featured in "Oswald's Ghost" at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938321/usercomments and wrote a book "Oswald's Tale" based on that fiction)

* Phillip Adams, who participated in the international effort to smear Olivier Stone and his towering movie JFK back in the early 1990's (http://candobetter.org/node/1286#comment-2955)

* Other left gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn

* Nearly all the Australian far left, that I once was a member of.

The undeserved authority that these people enjoy, still prevents a lot of people from being able to understand the simple truth of JFK's murder and, these days, 9/11 also.

Well, you know me, daggett.

>>Pericles would have us believe that the claims of deaths of hundreds first responders and chronic ill health of hundreds more are are all invented<<

I always like a bit of reality to creep in, every now and then. No particular reason, of course. It's just the way I am.

So where are these claims?

Do you have any evidence for the existence of "hundreds"?

Or is that yet another wild-assed figment of someone's imagination that you have taken at face value, without even the most cursory check?

I do admire your consistency in these matters, daggett, sneaky though it undoubtedly is.

Arjay practices the same deceit. I ask him a simple question, "Was Richard Gage a fireman too", and he starts to crow "Pericles doesn't know who Richard Gage is, nerny ner ner"

All of which is to cover up the fact that Richard Gage is not a fireman, has never been a fireman, and is therefore unlikely to win an argument with a real New York Fire Chief on the topic of... fire.

It would actually be pathetic, if it wasn't so funny.

Conversely, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

I loved your final attempt to bolster your flagging self-esteem, though.

>>as long as others are able to argue their case and don't allow themselves to fall for debating tricks, the final outcome is assured.<<

With the evidence that you present - not to mention the "debating tricks" you employ - your cause is doomed to frustration and ultimate failure.

I suggest you find yourself a more rewarding hobby, before the sheer unreality of the universe in which you immerse yourself takes over completely.

I hear collectibles can be fun

http://www.airsicknessbags.com/
http://modernmoisttowelette.com/
http://www.vgg.com/swingline/

Although, when you think about it, collecting swingline staplers is such a bizarre occupation, it must be a cover story for something outrageously devious.

I wonder if George Bush, or any of his relatives, is a member...

Pericles feigns ignorance:

"Do you have any evidence for the existence of 'hundreds'?"

From "Loose Change Final Cut: An Unofficial Transcript" at http://209.85.62.24/18/3/0/p79299/lcfc_unofficial_transcript.pdf

DYLAN AVERY: ... Although it was clear the air was not safe to breathe, the public was urged to return to lower Manhattan. Wall Street opened back up on September 17th, and children were allowed to go back to school. Firefighters, police and rescue workers were allowed to toil in lethal conditions using paper masks from Home Depot, while government officials walked around in Hazmat suits.

JOHN FEAL: My name is John Feal. I was hurt at Ground Zero during the cleanup. Well, you know, I was there only for five days before I was horribly injured, and I mean horribly injured. Leading up to that day, every day I was there I complained that it was a non-safe workplace. Someone's gonna get hurt. It just happened to me. But I let everybody know that someone would get hurt. I was there for five and a half days days, and nobody told me to wear a mask once. Nobody gave a 5hi+ when that piece of steel altered my life. But, like the thousand that are suffering and sick, I didn't roll over and play dead. And I know human life takes a back seat to the almighty dollar and that's what makes this country roll and run is the almighty dollar. But you guys somewhere lost... somewhere along the line lost your credibility with me.

AVERY: The Environmental Protection Agency, under direct orders from the White House, told New Yorkers that the air was safe to breathe. The administrator at the time, Christine Whitman, issued an internal memo on September 12th, declaring that all statements to the media should be cleared through the National Security Council before they are released.

NBC NEWSCASTER: So what happened? The White House changed EPA press releases to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones. September 13th: the EPA draft release, never released to the public, says "EPA testing terrorized sites for environmental hazards". The White House changes that to ...(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove...) "EPA reassures public about environmental hazards". September 16th: the EPA draft says "recent samples of dust on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos". The White House version? "New samples confirm ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and is not a cause for public concern". And the White House leaves out entirely this warning: "air samples raise concerns for cleanup workers and office workers near Water Street". Why all these changes?

NIKKI TINSLEY (identified by original titles as "EPA Inspector General"). We were told that a desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns were the reasons for changing the press releases.

FEAL: Christine [?-?-?] should be in jail for manslaughter. Christie, go to jail. Do not pass, go... just go to jail. Lock yourself up. When I said that, everybody said "Don't you think that's a little harsh?". And I said no. Six months later, every politician was saying it. Everybody was saying it like it was... like saying "hi". I pat myself on the back for having the nerve and the audacity to say that. She took orders from Condoleezza Rice, who took order from the White House. They knew the air was bad. They lied. You should go to jail for manslaughter, for every time somebody dies. James Zadroga, Don Jones, Tim Keller, my close personal friend, I had to go to his funeral. Officer Borgia [spelling?] and the many more that have died. I take this personally now. I take it real personal. You got an ex-mayor running for president who claims he helped us. Standing on a pile with a bullhorn, Mr President and Mr Giuliani, does not constitute helping anybody. At all.

AVERY: The EPA's public release assured people that there was no significant level of asbestos in the air and that instead of evacuating they could clean their homes with a wet rag. More people will die post-9/11 from these illnesses than died on the day itself. By 2006, 70% of the 40,000 Ground Zero workers had developed respiratory problems. Hundreds of them had developed cancer and over 80 had died.

Scary.

>>Pericles feigns ignorance: "Do you have any evidence for the existence of 'hundreds'?" From "Loose Change Final Cut: An Unofficial Transcript"...<<

Anyything is possible, I guess, if you are using "Loose Change" as your guide.

"Despite the video’s extraordinary popularity, its claims are so absurd that they are considered an embarrassment by other conspiracy theorists, some of whom have written lengthy critiques of the video’s most outlandish claims.

http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245.html#ixzz0i8NLqKCP

The claims it made, and the "evidence it presented" were so exceptionally egregious that they merit a blog all of their own.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

But even taking the movie on its face value - which is a big ask, but we'll try - this is the part, daggett, for which you have so far failed to provide a verifiable source.

>>By 2006, 70% of the 40,000 Ground Zero workers had developed respiratory problems. Hundreds of them had developed cancer and over 80 had died.<<

C'mon, I know you can do it if you try.

Pericles, has Screw Loose Change got anything to say about the health problems of First responders?

Can you show me any source as credible as John Feal, the first responder, interviewed by Dylan Avery, whose health has been ruined as a result of being lied to about it being safe to breathe the WTC dust?

If not, why are you quoting it?

Pericles wrote, "C'mon, I know you can do it if you try."

As if 70% of First Responders having respiratory problems is of no concern.

According to "Stand Up for Our Country’s Forgotten Victims and Heroes" at http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/

"It is estimated that more people will die from the aftermath of 9/11 than those who perished in the attacks. To date, over 800 first responders have died. In addition, a 2006 medical study of fire fighters reported that those personnel who inhaled Ground Zero air essentially lost 12 years of lung function."

Anyway, thanks for revealing your true level of concern about the ruined health of the first responders, Pericles.

I will take Pericles' silence on Condoleezza Rice as an indication that he thinks that it was perfectly alright that she ordered disgraced Health Official Christie Whitman to tell the First Responders that it was OK t breathe the dust, knowing that it was not.

Typical daggett smokescreen. You are becoming very predictable, you know.

>>I will take Pericles' silence on Condoleezza Rice as an indication that he thinks that it was perfectly alright that she ordered disgraced Health Official Christie Whitman to tell the First Responders that it was OK t breathe the dust, knowing that it was not.<<

Your assumptions about my attitude to the unfortunate folk caught up in the 9/11 tragedy are quite distasteful, given the fact that it is you and your ilk who continually exploit their misfortune for your own self-indulgent ends.

This is a typical example of what I mean.

>>Can you show me any source as credible as John Feal, the first responder, interviewed by Dylan Avery, whose health has been ruined as a result of being lied to about it being safe to breathe the WTC dust<<

The Fealgood Foundation is a thoroughly honest, compassionate and worthwhile venture. You only have to look through its pages to realize that it does not hold Condoleeza Rice responsible for their problems. It is a natural, community response to tragedy, that seeks to keep its members' personal welfare in front of government at all times.

To use them as support for your sick theories is an insult to every single one of them.

You really don't care how low you stoop, do you daggett.

Note Pericles' weasel words to understate the dire health consequences of the WTC dust for the health of First Responders: "the unfortunate folk caught up in the 9/11 tragedy", "their problems", "tragedy".

---

So, who do you hold responsible for telling the first responders that it was safe to breathe in the toxic WTC dust, when it was known that it was not, Pericles?

As shown above, John Feal, himself, has pointed out that the chain of command through which this deadly lie was conveyed to the First Responders went through Condoleezza Rice.

Yet another example of your somewhat suspect technique, daggett.

>>who do you hold responsible for telling the first responders that it was safe to breathe in the toxic WTC dust, when it was known that it was not, Pericles?<<

You have yet to show that "it was known".

That's where your argument falls down.

>>As shown above John Feal, himself, has pointed out that the chain of command through which this deadly lie was conveyed to the First Responders went through Condoleezza Rice.<<

Even if he did - and I could not find any evidence "as shown above" - he most certainly does not say that she was aware of the toxic nature of the dust.

John Feal sounds like a thoroughly decent person, with honourable and selfless motives. He doesn't appear to share your Bush/Cheney/Rice conspiracy theories. And he most certainly does not deserve to be dragged into your morbid and self-serving insinuations.

The person you quoted on the other hand, Dave Rible, is a minor politician on the make. His track record as one of two representatives of the 11th Legislative District in the New Jersey assembly includes sponsorship of a bill that "supports the unification of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland into a united Ireland, and supports placing the issue of Irish reunification on the American political agenda."

Nothing wrong with that, of course. Except that is acts to demonstrate the "look-it-me" nature of the individual, which I strongly suspect is what led him to write the piece that you quote in the first place.

The mendacity of his position can be deduced from the final sentence in the Bill's supporting statement.

"Partition violates democracy, and an end to partition should be supported by all democratic-minded people and people of good will."

Applying these "tall grey words" to India and Pakistan - whose partition is far more recent than that of Ireland - demonstrates clearly that he is merely showboating.

As indeed are you, daggett.

The thing is, I can understand it for a minor public figure in New Jersey. But what is your excuse?

Pericles wrote, "John Feal sounds like a thoroughly decent person, with honourable and selfless motives. ..."

I somehow doubt if John Feal would reciprocate, particularly if he read what Pericles' attempt to deny the catastrophic effects of WTC dust on his health.

Pericles continued, "He doesn't appear to share your Bush/Cheney/Rice conspiracy theories. ..."

Sure, he doesn't Pericles. Had you bothered to read what he said in his interview by Dylan Avery, above?

(Then Pericles wanders off to discuss the merits or otherwise of the re-unification of Ireland and the partition of the Indian subcontinent. What has any of that got to do with the topic at hand, Pericles?)

Anyway, to crosspost from the other forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=16)

I note Pericles claims that my claim that the US Government knowingly lied to the first responders is "pure invention".

Well, here are some of the lies to which I refer:

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe. ...
(ends)

So, unless that Pericles insists that Christie Whitman could not have known that the asbestos, heavy metals, PCB's, etc. present in the WTC dust has devastating consequences for health if ingested or inhaled, I would suggest that this was a deliberate lie that has condemned nearly all the First responders to ill health and thousands to death.

As First responder John Feal pointed out (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=25), this murderous lie came down the chain of command from the White House and through Condoleezza Rice to Christie Whitman.

*Looking around*

No Marilyn yet?

phooey.

Pericles you're amazing. What stamina. I wonder if you
all will make it to 500 posts.

I'll check back later to see if anything interesting
is happening.

There is unlikely to be anything of interest to anyone else but me, Pynchme, but you're welcome to drop in at any time.

>>I'll check back later to see if anything interesting is happening.<<

I am simply using daggett to explore the thought processes of the conspiracy theorist. The original idea was to write a book about the syndrome, but that market is already quite crowded. So it has become simply a pastime, with at least the semblance of underlying rationale. If I were actually concerned about what daggett thinks and believes, it would be far more tedious.

In fact, daggett seems to date to be quite comfortable in his role. Unfortunately, there are a couple of threads that seem to be converging right now, so there's a bit of duplication going on.

Anyway, back to work.

Where were we, daggett?

Ah yes.

>>Pericles' attempt to deny the catastrophic effects of WTC dust on his health.<<

Wrong, yet again. The "denial" is that it was a conscious act of aggression by Condoleezza Rice.

>>Had you bothered to read what he said in his interview by Dylan Avery<<

Every word. Nowhere did he even allude to your Bush/Cheney/Rice conspiracy theories. He was understandably upset that the health hazards had come second to actually pulling people out of the rubble.

But Bush/Cheney/Rice? Nope.

>>unless that Pericles insists that Christie Whitman could not have known that the asbestos, heavy metals, PCB's, etc. present in the WTC dust has devastating consequences for health if ingested or inhaled, I would suggest that this was a deliberate lie<<

Errr... the statement was made on September 18th, a full week after 9/11, daggett. It is possible that any damage had already been done, in everybody's natural concern for possible survivors?

Would you perhaps have had them all standing around watching for a week?

I guess you would. Send in the Health & Safety in the Workplace boys first. Give them earplugs so they don't hear any screams.

Pericles, somebody in authority lied and repeatedly lied to the First Responders that it was safe to breathe that dust, and you are lying here now to cover up that obvious truth.

The post I gave was indicative of the lies intentionally told to firs responders.

Here's another report dated 14 September.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=enviromental_impact_911_attacks_1449#enviromental_impact_911_attacks_1449

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor's Occupational Health and Safety Administration today announced that the majority of air and dust samples monitored at the crash site and in Lower Manhattan do not indicate levels of concern for asbestos. The new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern. New OSHA data also indicates that indoor air quality in downtown buildings will meet standards.

---

As I wrote on the other forum "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=17 :

The evidence I have given is just the tip of a massive, incontrovertible and damning body of evidence against the US Government, and it's inconceivable that Pericles could not have been unaware of its existence well before now.

Yet, he persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged.

Pericles: <"Anyway, back to work.">

haha!

Love your rationale:)

When I get a chance I might observe with greater attention than I have been recently.

In your investigations you might discern for me why Marilyn or
JFK or Watergate or something can't get a look in.

Do conspiracy theorists specialize to one topic?

Daggett: <"The evidence I have given is just the tip of a massive, incontrovertible and damning body of evidence against the US Government, and it's inconceivable that Pericles could not have been unaware of its existence well before now.

Yet, he persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged.">

Daggett, are you saying that Pericles is part of the conspiracy ? An active, purposeful conspirator ? In league with the US government or something ? If true that would be very scary.

In a sense they do, Pynchme.

>>Do conspiracy theorists specialize to one topic?<<

But the "topic" is that of a secret cabal of "elites" (they tend to use that word a lot) who actively control the various governments of the world. With this as a starting point, absolutely everything becomes fair game for a conspiracy - the financial meltdown, 9/11, wars, oil production, individual surveillance and so on.

I have found the "single issue fanatic" a rare breed amongst true conspiracy theorists.

Incidentally, this last post of daggett's is highly typical of the genre.

>>Pericles, somebody in authority lied and repeatedly lied to the First Responders that it was safe to breathe that dust, and you are lying here now to cover up that obvious truth<<

Worthy of note are:

- "somebody in authority" is a universal substitute for the "secret cabal". Since he is unable to show the connection of a "lie" with the cabal - in this case, Bush/Cheney/Rice - daggett is forced to dredge up the minor players, and use them as analogues.

Here he has found a minor functionary, in this case the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health . The next step will be to tell us that i) he deliberately lied, so that the rescuers would suffer horribly and die, and then ii) will state that he did so on the direct orders of Condoleezza Rice.

My task at that point, according to him, will be to "disprove" this rubbish.

(Note: what he doesn't like, at this point, is my upbraiding him for using the sufferings of others for his own self-gratification. That hurts. Or at least, it should)

The other noteworthy phraseology is the repetition of "lie". He knows he cannot prove that there was any deliberate falsehood, so simply calls it a “lie”, over and over again, as if it were. It's like a (slightly) grown-up version of "'Tis-'tis not-'tis- 'tis not", with the victor being the last man standing.

Weird. But consistent, and predictable.

This next part is essentially meaningless, and is the sort of thing he feels it necessary to say every now and then.

>>The evidence I have given is just the tip of a massive, incontrovertible and damning body of evidence against the US Government, and it's inconceivable that Pericles could not have been unaware of its existence well before now.<<

The games here are interesting. By calling it "just the tip", he effectively excuses himself from the need to provide any detail.

And as you pointed out, the "inconceivable" part is desinged to implicate me. Which is, I suppose, somewhat flattering, in an obtuse sort of way.

>>he persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged<<

This is also a classic.

As he well knows, I have only been arguing against his specific hypotheses. At no point have I made any direct statement about the happenings of 9/11, except in the context of his absurd propositions. So it is dreadfully important for him to brand those objections as "lies" as well.

It is of course the justification he makes to himself, for carrying on this absurd correspondence. Which of course, suits me just fine.

It is actually quite a rewarding pastime, Pynchme, for anyone fascinated by the diversity of human nature.

Pericles: Just checking back.

Don't tell me Dagget and Co have given up the good fight.

I was holding out hope for a new conspiracy. I saw on the web
that it's now thought by some insightful scally-wags that Michael Jackson staged his death so that he could make a fresh start. It's thought that he is copying Elvis.

I eagerly await more 'details' :)

(From Paul Craig Roberts: American Naifs Bringing Ruin to Other Lands)

... Professor Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph says that "false flag" operations have the advantage over truth: "research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs." Professor Steven Hoffman agrees: "Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information." Even when hard evidence turns up, it can be discredited as a "conspiracy theory."

All that is necessary for success of "false flag" or "black ops" events is for the government to have its story ready and to have a reliable and compliant media. Once an official story is in place, thought and investigation are precluded. Any formal inquiry that is convened serves to buttress the already provided explanation.

An explanation ready-at-hand is almost a give-away that an incident is a "black ops" event. Notice how quickly the U.S. government, allegedly so totally deceived by al Qaida, provided the explanation for 9/11. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the government produced the culprit immediately. The alleged culprit was conveniently shot inside a jail by a civilian before he could be questioned. But the official story was ready, and it held.

Professors Manwell and Hoffman's research resonates with me. I remember reading in my graduate studies that the Czarist secret police set off bombs in order to create excuses to arrest their targets. My inclination was to dismiss the accounts as anti-Czarist propaganda by pro-communist historians. It was only later when Robert Conquest confirmed to me that this was indeed the practice of the Czarist secret police that the scales fell from my eyes.
( ... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18180)

The problem with the Michael Jackson conspiracy, Pynchme, is that it doesn't have a role for a cabal of elitists and banksters who are controlling the currency, our governments, the war in Afghanistan etc. for their own personal gain.

Our current crop of conspiracy-wallahs would simply scoff at the notion.

Huh, they would say, what in the world could possibly give you that idea?

And with a contemptuous toss of the head, a swirl of dust from their cape, they'd be off on their high horse.

And who could blame them?

Oh, wait...

Let me just point out daggett that you are walking, living, breathing proof of this very point...

>>research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs<<

I can only gasp with admiration at the incisive insight.

Who'd 'a thunk it, eh?

Pericles - I have irrefutable proof of a CIA /Pentagon coverup regarding MJ. He didn't kill himself but was assassinated.

- and I quote:

To the reason behind the CIA needing to assassinate Michael Jackson, these reports continue, was an out of court settlement the pop icon signed with son of the king of Bahrain, Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamad al-Khalifa, this past November in London, and which stated, in part, that in exchange for millions of dollars previously lent to Mr. Jackson by the Sheikh, Mr. Jackson would allow his sold-out United Kingdom concerts to be a “platform” for warning the World of a soon to occur mass genocide event.

Both Michael Jackson and Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamad al-Khalifa have been long standing supporters of the fearless Austrian investigative journalist, Jane Burgermeister, who is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway, and as we can read:

“Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder... etc

The report also notes that the US government has mobilized the ADS (Active Denial System) and also that Russian satellites notes microwaves in the exact coordinates of MJ's untimely demise.

“A newly declassified U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report says- extensive Soviet research into microwaves might lead to methods of causing disoriented human behavior, nerve disorders or even heart attacks.... A copy of the study was provided by the agency to The Associated Press in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act. The Pentagon agency refused to release some portions of the study, saying they remain classified on national security grounds.”

Note the refusal by the Pentagon to release details of the microwave study: 2001 report “Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Weapons: As Powerful As The Atomic Bomb”

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1244.htm

I rest my case.

Refute it if you can you smug cynic you!

In the face of such overwhelming evidence, Pynchme, what can a chap do?

Just put his head in his hands and weep, I guess.

Oh, the humanity.

Talking of which,,,

"It's practically standing still now. They've dropped ropes out of the nose of the ship; and (uh) they've been taken ahold of down on the field by a number of men. It's starting to rain again; it's... the rain had (uh) slacked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it (uh) just enough to keep it from... It's burst into flames! It burst into flames, and it's falling, it's crashing! Watch it! Watch it! Get out of the way! Get out of the way! Get this, Charlie; get this, Charlie! It's fire... and it's crashing! It's crashing terrible! Oh, my! Get out of the way, please! It's burning and bursting into flames and the... and it's falling on the mooring mast. And all the folks agree that this is terrible; this is the one of the worst catastrophes in the world. [indecipherable] its flames... Crashing, oh! Four- or five-hundred feet into the sky and it... it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It's smoke, and it's in flames now; and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity!...And all the passengers screaming around here. I told you; it—I can't even talk to people, their friends are out there! Ah! It's... it... it's a... ah! I... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest: it's just laying there, mass of smoking wreckage. Ah! And everybody can hardly breathe and talk and the screaming. Lady, I... I... I'm sorry. Honest: I... I can hardly breathe. I... I'm going to step inside, where I cannot see it. Charlie, that's terrible. Ah, ah... I can't. Listen, folks; I... I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because [indecipherable] I've lost my voice. This is the worst thing I've ever witnessed."

I believe there may have been a cabal of elites behind that, too.

The Hindenberg!

Of course! - and the thermite theory, to name but one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster

Brilliant Sherlock.

Elvis dunnit.

Why the Hindenburg, Pericles?

I would have thought that the far more obvious counterparts to today's 9/11 Truthers from that era would have been those conspiracy nutters who accused the Nazi Party of having deliberately burned down the Reichstag in order to be able to blame the German Communist Party for the crime.

As I wrote earlier, "[Pericles] persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged."

It's much easier to peddle a lie that conforms to official dogma conveyed by our governments and newsmedia than it is to challenge that lie. Just ask any German who, in 1933, questioned guilt of the German Communist Party of the charge of having burnt down the Reichstag.

Anyway to put another lie to rest:

I wrote, "Pericles, somebody in authority lied and repeatedly lied to the First Responders that it was safe to breathe that dust, and you are lying here now to cover up that obvious truth."

Pericles response was:

"Worthy of note are:

"- 'somebody in authority' is a universal substitute for the 'secret cabal'. ..."

No, Pericles. I am stating that in our democratic system, our governments should ultimately held responsible for decisions which adversely affect us, in this case, the decision to lead the first responders to believe that it was safe to breathe the toxic dust around the WTC.

Pericles continues, "... Since he is unable to show the connection of a 'lie' with the cabal - in this case, Bush/Cheney/Rice - daggett is forced to dredge up the minor players, and use them as analogues."

But, Pericles, didn't you say that you had read "every word" of what John Feal said to Dylan Avery?

This is John Feal he said:

"She took orders from Condoleezza Rice, who took order from the White House. They knew the air was bad. They lied. You should go to jail for manslaughter, for every time somebody dies. James Zadroga, Don Jones, Tim Keller, my close personal friend, I had to go to his funeral. Officer Borgia [spelling?] and the many more that have died. I take this personally now. I take it real personal."

Then later Pericles writes:

"You only have to look through [the pages of http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/] to realize that it does not hold Condoleeza Rice responsible for their problems."

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

So, whilst John Feal has stated that he holds Condoleezza Rice responsible for their health problems, Pericles just happens to know that the Fealgood foundation does not.

Pericles continued, "... Even if he did - and I could not find any evidence ..."

But didn't you say, they you had read "every word" of what John Feal said to Dylan Avery?

Pericles continued, "... 'as shown above' - he most certainly does not say that she was aware of the toxic nature of the dust."

Sure, Pericles, the fact that dust laden with asbestos, heavy metals, PCBs etc., would have posed a deadly threat to the health of First Responders would never have entered the heads of Condoleezza Rice and those above her, even though, according to John Feal, all the media releases from the Environmental Protection Agency were vetted by the White house and, according to John Feal, Christie Whitman took orders from Condoleezza Rice.

So, Pericles would have us believe that it was all Christie Whitman's fault that the health of 40,000 first responders has been ruined and that more than died on 11 September 2001 are expected to die.

Either Pericles is a complete moron, or he is a lying hypocrite.

No doubt, Pericles also excuses Condoleezza Rice for having ignored the numerous warnings that she received of the terrorist threat prior to 9/11 and would have us believe that John Howard and Alexander Downer were kept completely ignorant of the $296 million paid in bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Pericles wrote, "John Feal sounds like a thoroughly decent person, with honourable and selfless motives. He doesn't appear to share your Bush/Cheney/Rice conspiracy theories. And he most certainly does not deserve to be dragged into your morbid and self-serving insinuations."

Sure, Pericles, as long as he can't be shown to have directly accused the US Government of having orchestrated 9/11, he/she is a "thoroughly decent person".

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

The moment they openly beg to differ from Pericles' view on 9/11, then that all changes very quickly. No doubt, a good many First Responders have at the back of their minds how savagely other First Responders have been attacked by Pericles' ilk in the US when they have come out openly in support of the 9/11 Truth Movement, so, the motives for people in their vulnerable circumstances not being as outspoken on that question would seem perfectly understandable to me.

Anyway, Pericles, we aren't arguing over whether or not John Feal publicly endorses the 9/11 Truth movement.

What we were arguing about was whether or not Condoleezza Rice would be capable of knowingly causing the deaths of hundreds of her fellow Americans. The evidence that she would be seems overwhelming.

As I noted in the forum "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=22 those three model citizens of the New World Order, Pericles, PynchMe and Christopher appear to have lost their voices.

It's as if my mention of the Reichstag fire has embarrassed them into silence.

Anyway, it's been my experience, that liars will always eventually desist in any debate in which those arguing the truth are able to put their arguments unhindered, and I don't expect things to turn out any differently here.

---

I have noticed on BrassCheck TV a page of videos largely devoted to the assassinations of US political leaders (and it seems striking that Pericles has no-where on this forum, as far as I can recall, challenged any of the case against the lie that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK, and I think he is most wise in his thoroughly dishonest purposes here not to have done so).

The page is "Assassination studies" at http://brasschecktv.com/index.php?call=category&id=24

It includes a video of Jack Ruby at http://brasschecktv.com/page/234.html

Jack Ruby, who murdered Lee Harvey Oswald, was also identified as one of the JFK conspirators by witnesses who stated that he had often been seen with Oswald prior to the assassination, a fact denied by upholders of the official lie of the JFK assassination.

He died, of cancer apparently after he had been deliberately injected with cancer cells after he had decided to speak the truth about his role in the assassination.

The liars who claim that no-one who participated in the conspiracy to murder JFK has ever come forward to speak the truth, conveniently forget Jack Ruby as they forget David Ferrier another conspirator, who mysteriously died of a heart attack shortly before he was to give evidence in Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw (as dramatised in Olver Stone's JFK of 1991).

Here too, daggett?

Are you sure you don't have too much time on your hands?

All that "research" that goes into your offerings must take some time, surely? Or do you just skim over it looking for key words and phrases?

>>It's as if my mention of the Reichstag fire has embarrassed them into silence.<<

No, it was simply being ignored, out of charity.

>>I would have thought that the far more obvious counterparts to today's 9/11 Truthers from that era would have been those conspiracy nutters who accused the Nazi Party of having deliberately burned down the Reichstag in order to be able to blame the German Communist Party for the crime<<

Even Wikipedia accepts that it was not conspiracy nutters, as you so succinctly describe them, making the accusation.

"...it was generally believed at the time that the Nazi hierarchy was involved for political gain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

I don't think that you can describe "9/11 Truthers" theories being "generally believed", can you?.

Yours was the embarrassment being protected, I'm suspect. Rather than point out this obvious error, I personally chose to imagine that you had simply experienced a senior moment.

And if you'd really like us to believe that you are not a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist, why start a whole new nutter-fest here?

>>He died, of cancer apparently after he had been deliberately injected with cancer cells after he had decided to speak the truth about his role in the assassination.<<

You know, daggett, it's that "apparently" that lets you down.

What is apparent to you, is a deep mystery to the rest of us who live, generally, at peace with the planet.

But if that's the way you choose to live your life, who am I to argue. I'll just stick to reality, myself. It is actually far less stressful than trying to maintain a flimsy edifice of imaginary happenings, in the cause of uncovering the protagonists of the New World Order.

'Cos underneath it all, you don't really believe it yourself, do you?

It's just a form of mental calisthenics, really, isn't it?

Carn, 'fess up.

Daggett: <"He died, of cancer apparently after he had been deliberately injected with cancer cells after he had decided to speak the truth about his role in the assassination.">

Haha too good.

Why inject cancer cells and wait however long for them to take and produce a tumor that might or might not prove fatal - thereby providing plenty of time for him to tell someone he'd been injected etc.

Part of his legal defense was that he suffered from psycho motor epilepsy. It would have been fairly simple, fast, effective and supported by his own defense case to induce an epileptic seizure with fatal consequences.

Or, at his age, digitalis - heart attack. Oh, hang on. I think his cause of death was determined as pulmonary embolism.

So why the elaborate cancer cells biz ?

Well, at least Pericles now seems to have finally grasped that at least one government had a motive to commit an act of terrorism and then blame it on its political opponents as an excuse to deprive them of their democratic, civil and human rights.

---

Anyway, Pericles, the material about JFK was put there because that was what the discussion was about. It was not put there for your benefit, as you had shown no interest in that topic, thus far, having neither acknowledged nor responded to any of the previous arguments made by Arjay or myself.

I was not expecting that to change now as you have demonstrated once more.

Yes, it's hilarious, PynchMe.

People, in fear for their lives, because they want to tell the truth, suddenly die under mysterious circumstances.

Consequently others who want to attest to the truth in court hearings are too frightened to do so.

I am glad that you have been able to draw the attention of the rest of us to the inherent humour of this situation.

As I wrote, you're a model citizen of the New World Order and I have no doubt that you would have fitted in very well in 1930's Germany as well.

---

What I wrote of Jack Ruby's death was from a scene omitted from Olver Stone's JFK in order to reduce it to a more manageable size.

The US had extensive biological warfare programs at the time so the allegation seems far from far-fetched to me.

If you can show me where Stone has been shown to be wrong, let me know.

The funny bit Daggett is the proliferation of conspiracy theories around every interesting event. I think conspiracy theories are ok - I enjoy them actually - and I think they are better than apathy. However, some of the stuff that comes up is just plain ridiculous.

Injecting cancer cells? If FBI and CIA are using such ridiculously complicated ways of bumping people off then reading Agatha Christie should be a mandatory entry level training requirement.

I can think of at least 1/2 doz - maybe even a dozen - ways to kill someone that would be difficult to prove as murder. What about insulin injections? How about making someone drink a couple of litres of water? Choking with a block of ice down the windpipe. Ummm - anyway...

I think I read somewhere that he did have lung cancer as well but it was an embolism that killed him. In any case it would be an unpredictable and unnecessarily complex way to murder someone, if it was even possible (which I don't believe it is).

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100rubycancer.html

PynchMe, you don't strike me as an unchallenged authority on human disease and causes of death, so I don't see why we should accept your pronouncements on Jack Ruby's allegations as the final word.

Here's what is written even in Wikipedia:

Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox claimed: "Ruby told me, he said, 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that ____. He said, 'I damn sure do!'

...

... on December 9, 1966, Ruby was admitted to Parkland Hospital in Dallas, suffering from pneumonia. A day later, doctors realized he had cancer in his liver, lungs, and brain.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby#Ruby_alleged_conspiracies)

So, I would suggest that Ruby's allegations should have been seriously investigated.

But they weren't.

Why do you think that was, PynchMe?

The same article tells of how the Warren Commission refused to listen to Jack Ruby's testimony.

Why do you think that was, PynchMe?

And why are you silent on the Warren Commission covering up evidence of Jack Ruby's previous association with Lee Harvey Oswald?

This is almost an apology, isn't it daggett?

>>Well, at least Pericles now seems to have finally grasped that at least one government had a motive to commit an act of terrorism and then blame it on its political opponents as an excuse to deprive them of their democratic, civil and human rights.<<

I have always understood that black ops play a part in any regime that needs justification to play the aggressor against their enemies.

The Nazis needed an excuse to beat up on Communists, so they framed one poor sap for the Reichstag fire.

Your problem is, the only people you can find to play the Nazis in this updated conspiracy scenario, are a "secret cabal of elites".

That you cannot identify.

So you are left with an imaginary group of people, with an imaginary motive.

That's a tough starting point.

It doesn't get any easier, when you have to imagine the embezzlement of billions of dollars as the financial facilitator for your 9/11 theories.

From that point, it is relatively easy to imagine a Die Hard scenario to cater for all the planning and execution parts. By this time, suspension of disbelief is the norm.

All up, it exists only in your imagination, daggett. Helped along of course by a bunch of like-minded conspiracy junkies, who seem to need the extra excitement that these fictions bring to their lives.

Or perhaps it's the only excitement.

That would explain a great deal.

No, it's not an apology Pericles.

It's an acknowledgement the discussion has finally moved forward, if ever so slightly.

Pericles wrote, "I have always understood that black ops play a part in any regime that needs justification to play the aggressor against their enemies."

Like the US joint Chiefs of Staff who were going to commit acts of terrorism against US residents in 1962 in order to be able to blame it on Cuba and justify and invasion. It was called Operation Northwoods, in case you had forgotten, Pericles. It's a documented fact and no longer a theory. It was only stopped because Presidenk Kennedy had the backbone to stand up to the Generals. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

---

Pericles teaches me about German history:

"The Nazis needed an excuse to beat up on Communists, so they framed one poor sap for the Reichstag fire."

No!

---

Pericles rants incoherently:

"Your problem is, the only people you can find to play the Nazis in this updated conspiracy scenario, are a 'secret cabal of elites'.

"That you cannot identify.

"..."

And how did Pericles happen to know that I cannot identifiy any of them?

I haven't memorised all the names, but I know for a fact that some of them are called the Rothschilds and others are called the Rockefellers.

Who do you think Eisenhower was referring to when he warned against the military industrial complex, Perecles?

Here's how Theodore Roosevelt described them:

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an /invisible government/ owing no allegience and acknowledging no responsibiity to the people. To destroy the /invisible government/.to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first business of statesmanship of the day."

Are you sure you don't have too much time on your hands, daggett?

Keeping two threads going like overkill to me. Especially as you usually have nothing original to offer on either topic.

Finally, though, you are starting to lift the veil a little on the secret cabal of international elites, to whom you attribute a string of terrorist actions perpetrated against innocent citizens, in their pursuit of world domination through the establishment of a New World Order.

Did I get that right, by the way? It was a bit of an effort to write it all out without laughing.

>>I haven't memorised all the names, but I know for a fact that some of them are called the Rothschilds and others are called the Rockefellers.<<

Here's a tip. Don't try to memorise them. Write them down. Then you won't forget them.

And when you can actually point to one, do let us all know, won't you?

Until then, I choose to believe that they exist only in your imagination.

And I suspect I may not be alone in that.

Have a great day. And watch out for those gamma rays, won't you.

Pericles wrote, "Here's a tip. Don't try to memorise them. Write them down. Then you won't forget them."

Actually, Mark Lombardi did precisely that in his "Global Networks" drawings that were critically acclaimed by art critics (before he apparently suicided in 2000). (See "Mark Lombardi: Global Networks" by Robert Hobbs at http://www.flashpointmag.com/cplombard.htm)

The Bush family's part in the invisible Government was also depicted.

---

Pericles wrote, "Until then, I choose to believe that they exist only in your imagination."

... and presumably also the "imaginations" of Presidents Eisenhower, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and Edward Bernays, whose works on "public relations" were used as text books by the Third Reich's propagandists as well as propagandists in the US.

Of the invisible Government, Bernays wrote,

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised opinions and habits of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tasks form, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." (Propaganda (1928) by Edward Bernays, cited in "Towers of Deception - the Media Cover-up of 9/11"(2006) p225 by Barrie Zwicker)

Of course, whether a society in which opinions and habits of the masses are manipulated by an invisible government is truly 'democratic' is questionable.

Phew. I thought your last contribution to the other thread was bizarre, daggett. This one defies such a simplistic definition.

Conspiracy theory meets Salvador Dali.

Who'd 'a' thunk it?

I must thank you for the digression into the world of Mark Lombardi. A world as rich and vibrant in the use of the imagination as... yours, I guess.

It's just that he was a better artist, and therefore better known. Otherwise, I'd say you were twins.

I'm also indebted to Maurice Merleau-Ponty for this little gem used by Robert Hobbs in his appraisal of Lombardi's work.

"When I say that every visible is invisible, that perception is imperception, that consciousness has a ‘punctum caecum,’ that to see is always to see more than one sees – this must be understood in the sense of contradiction – it must be imagined that I add to the visible...a nonvisible...– One has to understand that it is visibility itself that involves nonvisibility."

I shall keep this, and treasure it. If I can find the original for proper attribution, I'll definitely be using it in my book.

Quite possibly as the dedication.

It is about as perfect a description of your own thought processes as can be written. Classic.

And how amazingly fortunate for you that Lombardi "committed suicide". Imagine if he had been uncooperative, and died of natural causes...

Every hundred or so of your posts, daggett, you come up with a gem.

This one is certainly in that class.

Pericles wrote, "I must thank you for the digression into the world of Mark Lombardi. A world as rich and vibrant in the use of the imagination as... yours, I guess."

Actually, Pericles, the works were entirely based on news gathered from mainstream newspapers.

Yes, it's hilarious that Mark Lombardi committed suicide, isn't it, Pericles?

No doubt, PynchMe and Christopher also see the humour in this.

At the moment I do not whether or not there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding Mark Lombardi's suicide. All I know is that he is supposed ot have killed himself. The overall number of untimely deaths, whether through heart attacks, cancer, suicides, plane crashes, not to mention assassinations, of people who seem to pose a threat to the invisible Government strikes me as suspicious.

---

Note Pericles' silence on the fact that former US Presidents Eisenhower, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and Edward Bernays seem to share much of my understanding about the Invisible Government (whether or not they approve of it).

I have come to look forward to your "Note how Pericles..." paragraphs, daggett. They make me chuckle.

>>Note Pericles' silence on the fact that former US Presidents Eisenhower, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and Edward Bernays seem to share much of my understanding about the Invisible Government (whether or not they approve of it).<<

"Former US Presidents Eisenhower, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and Edward Bernays" are all well and truly dead, daggett.

So it's difficult to see how they can share much of your understanding of anything, frankly.

But seriously, do you think that one tiny soundbite, out of context, is sufficient to recruit them to your cause - the cause, I should remind you, that there is a secret cabal of international elites (or is that an international cabal of secret elite - no matter) enforcing upon us a New World Order.

Let's just take Bernays, for a moment.

Did you actually bother to read the tract from which you excised that quote?

I thought not.

Here it is, in full.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

You see, it is about advertising. Not world domination.

As Chomsky points out:

"His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that..."

Nice guy.

Incidentally, this is plain tacky.

>>Yes, it's hilarious that Mark Lombardi committed suicide, isn't it, Pericles?<<

Hilarious may well be your word for it, daggett. It certainly was not mine

Pericles wrote, "Did you actually bother to read the tract from which you excised that quote?"

Naturally Bernays would have people believe that this manipulation of people is all for the best and that is the way it reads in the broader context.

Whether or not that quote is in its broader context, it actually describes the processes by which people are manipulated in supposed democracies.

Of course, anyone who maintains that Bernays' works are only about advertising (presumably commercial advertising) and not political control is ignoring my point that Bernays' works were text books for Third Rich propagandists as well as US propagandists.

In 1954 Bernays ran a propaganda campaign aimed at bringing down the democratic elected government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Wikipedia describes it thus:

"Bernays' most extreme political propaganda activities were said to be conducted on behalf of the multinational corporation United Fruit Company (today's Chiquita Brands International) and the U.S. government to facilitate the successful overthrow (see Operation PBSUCCESS) of the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Bernays' propaganda (documented in the BBC documentary, The Century of the Self), branding Arbenz as communist, was published in major U.S. media." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Overthrow_of_government_of_Guatemala)

Well, I am glad you don't see Mark Lombardi's suicide as hilarious after all, Pericles. In the context, where people like PynchMe ("Haha too good") and Christopher find death and apparent suicide and people being frightened to speak the truth as somehow funny, I think many would understand how I could have formed that impression from you last post.

If Pericles professed compassion for people such as Lombardi, whom we are told, killed himself, is genuine, then I think he would demonstrate a capacity to consider evidence that is contrary to claims that such people killed themselves.

Pericles, the invisible Government has been around for centuries. If people of the stature of Roosevelt, Wilson, Eisenhower attested to its existence and expressed their fear of it, then I would suggest that that is compelling evidence of its existence back then. And if it existed back, then it hardly seems likely that it would not be in existence today. Some may be interested to know that Pericles lost and ran away from on argument, in part, about the Invisible Government at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9092&page=25

---

I note Pericles 'silence on the fact that all of Lombardi's work about the Invisible Government was factually based from newspapers.

And he has not uttered a word about Operation Northwoods.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

More delusion, daggett.

>>Pericles, the invisible Government has been around for centuries<<

If it is invisible, how would you know? If it is visible, where is it?

You cannot have it both ways, and stay credible.

>>If people of the stature of Roosevelt, Wilson, Eisenhower attested to its existence and expressed their fear of it, then I would suggest that that is compelling evidence of its existence back then.<<

The "evidence" you offer is, as usual, completely empty.

The Roosevelt quote you employ to "prove" the existence of invisible government was a statement of intent when he formed the Progressive Party in 1912. Most people would regard it, in context, as rhetoric, rather than political analysis.

The Woodrow Wilson quote most often used by conspiracy dudes is the one that starts "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country"

As you probably know, this is entirely apocryphal. There is no verifiable source, just made-up stuff. As usual.

And here's the full Eisenhower speech, unedited, so that you can see that military-industrial complex sound-bite in context.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

He was talking about something that was new:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience"

And that the citizenry needed to ensure it didn't get out of hand.

"We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

The potential existed. And still exists.

But so does the potential for nuclear warfare. That doesn't mean it is happening.

I think we might have noticed.

These random sentences do nothing for your case, daggett. If anything, they simply emphasise how shallow are the foundations of your case.

Let's not forget that one of Pericles' principle excuses for his refusal to even discuss the evidence against the official account of the WTC 'collapses' by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) is that he insists that the US Government is not controlled by a secret cabal of wealthy elites. Let's recount the dialogue in the forum "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=16):

I wrote: "what, then, is Pericles' case? No doubt, Pericles prefers to keep it secret ..."

Then Pericles wrote,

"No secret, daggett.

"No secret at all.

"My case is that your conspiracy theory simply does not make the slightest sense.

"Unless, of course, you believe that there is a New World Order, complete with a mega-rich 'elite; of 'globalists' and 'banksters', a 'cabal' that is who are secretly orchestrating a takeover of world government.

"In which case, of course, it makes all the sense in the world."

Yet I have shown, both here and on that earlier forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9092&page=25) that a number of US leaders of considerable stature have attested precisely to the existence of such a cabal.

Pericles latest rant is an attempt to gloss over that fact.

This is what President Wilson wrote:

"There's a power so organised, so subtle, so pervasive, so interlocked, that you had better not speak above your breath when you speak in condemnation of it."

In 1934 that power attempted to persuade World War 1 hero General Smedley Butler to overthrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and install himself as Führer of the US, but Butler refused and blew the whistle on them (Zwicker pp226-227).

Most unfortunately the plotters were not put on trial for treason.

Clearly Eisenhower's perceived the Invisible Government somewhat differently,[1] because of the massive growth of the armaments industry, but that made it no less real.

(Also, note that Pericles still has not responded to my point about about Operation Northwoods. I can only presume that he has judged that that evidence presents problems for the case he is trying to argue here.)

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

FOOTNOTES

1. And let's not forget that the 'military industrial complex" actually tried to make Kennedy launch a number of aggressive wars including, on at least three occasions an all-out nuclear first strike on the USSR. The first time it was put to him Kennedy walked out of the meeting. As he walked back to the Oval office, he said to Secretary of State Dean Rusk "And we call ourselves the human race". (Douglass, p 236).

So, if Pericles sincerely thinks that all-out nuclear war back in the 1960's would not have been a good thing (unlike the cabal, whom he pretends does not exist), then he should acknowledge the courage of the one man who prevented it and begin to seriously contemplate the possibility that that is why he was murdered.

Another random quote daggett. Out of context and inaccurately transcribed.

Naughty.

>>"There's a power so organised, so subtle, so pervasive, so interlocked, that you had better not speak above your breath when you speak in condemnation of it."<<

Here it is verbatim.

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

This is reported speech. Wilson did not say the words himself. You substituted "you" for "they", and changed "They know there is a power..." to "There's a power".

Check it out, it's all there in Project Gutenberg, "The New Freedom - A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People"

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811

I know you hate having your references checked. But someone has to do it.

>>In 1934 that power attempted to persuade World War 1 hero General Smedley Butler to overthrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt<<

What power was that, daggett?

Let's have another look at Wilson's speech.

"They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares."

Trade, daggett.

Commerce.

Not treason.

Oh yes, Operation Northwoods.

"A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces"

False flag, false flag! Must be a conspiracy to instal the New World Order...

So what were they suggesting should be done? Have a bunch of guys blow up Havana?

Errr, no.

"(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans)
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; -- large fires (napthalene).
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock victims (may be lieu of (10))."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

Where's the murder of thousands of citizens?

Even the victims are "mock"

Pathetic.

If you like some more history, here's the document that asked for the submissions in the first place.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cuba/mongoose.htm

And just to round it off nicely, the plan was i) rejected out of hand by Kennedy within three days of its submission and ii) Lyman Lemnitzer was quietly shunted out of sight.

Just a rogue operator.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Pericles demands to know, "Where's the murder of thousands of citizens?"

As Pericles well knows that was not my point.

My point was to show that the US Government clearly had a motive to commit acts of terrorism against its own citizens in 1962, (leaving aside that Pericles' list of planned false flag terrorist attacks is far from complete).

That motive was to blame another country for that terrorism in order to justify an invasion of another nation, namely Cuba.

And that is precisely the motive the US Government had to stage 9/11.

Yet Pericles repeats his lie ad infinitum that I have not provided a motive for the US Government itself to have committed 9/11.

Pericles writes:

"Even the victims are 'mock'"

... as if the CIA and the US military could be trusted to honour any undertakings made not to cause the deaths of US citizens in staging these attacks.

Does Pericles imagine that the deaths caused in the planned invasion of Cuba would also have been "mock"?

Pericles wrote, "Move along. Nothing to see here."

No, Pericles, nothing to see except what what the US Joint Chief of Staff intended to be their excuse to launch a war of aggression against a sovereign nation.

Nothing to see here except what may have been used as the pretext for starting World War 3.

---

Note that, how, in a discussion about the conspiracy by the US security state to murder President Kennedy, Pericles would have us believe that he fails to understand the significance of the fact that Kennedy overruled the US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff's Operation Northwoods plans.

Note how he has not responded to my point (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=32) about President Kennedy's heroic role in stopping the US joint Chiefs of Staff's plans to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR.

---

Pericles, why isn't "invisible government" an apt description of a group of people whom, according to President Wilson, struck so much fear into the hearts of US commerce and manufacturing leaders?

Really, daggett?

>>My point was to show that the US Government clearly had a motive to commit acts of terrorism against its own citizens in 1962<<

And Operation Northwoods demonstrates that... how, exactly?

The plan was all "just-pretend". Right down to the mock victims.

And this is weird.

>>That motive was to blame another country for that terrorism in order to justify an invasion of another nation, namely Cuba. And that is precisely the motive the US Government had to stage 9/11.<<

9/11 was staged in order to invade Cuba?

How bizarre.

Didn't work, then.

And you're scraping the barrel here, too.

>>Pericles would have us believe that he fails to understand the significance of the fact that Kennedy overruled the US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff's Operation Northwoods plans.<<

What was significant about it? Do you imagine that Kennedy went around accepting every loony-tunes plan that the Joint Chiefs of Staff produced?

>>Note how he has not responded to my point about President Kennedy's heroic role in stopping the US joint Chiefs of Staff's plans to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR.<<

There you go - there's another example. What was "heroic" about it, daggett.

He was the President, for goodness' sake. He was doing his job.

>>Pericles, why isn't "invisible government" an apt description of a group of people whom, according to President Wilson, struck so much fear into the hearts of US commerce and manufacturing leaders?<<

Turn the question around. What is it that makes it particularly "apt"?

It's just rhetoric, about the tendency of big businesses to use standover tactics against small ones.

A little permissible hyperbole from a retiring politician.

Your doctorate, obviously, is in molehill-to-mountain conversion, daggett.

A prerequisite, no doubt, for any self-respecting conspiracy doob.

Daggett: <"... people like PynchMe ("Haha too good") and Christopher find death and apparent suicide and people being frightened to speak the truth as somehow funny...">

Now that's a very naughty statement isn't it when I already explained (and explanation would have been unnecessary to any ordinary person) that the source of amusement was your suggestion that government agents would go through all the elaborate drama of injecting cancer cells into someone (even if it would work, which was unlikely and certainly unproven) to surreptitiously cause their death when any number of simpler and more certain methods were available.

Pericles wrote, "He was the President, for goodness' sake. He was doing his job."

Well, I also would have thought that preventing World War 3 and seeing to it that the US military and spy agencies complied with US law, should have been part of the job description of the President of the United States, but apparently the CIA and the Generals thought differently.

That is why he was murdered on 22 November 1963.

---

That's about all I can find that I consider warrants any response at all on my part in Pericles latest post.

If anyone can show me where any of the rest of Pericles' post in any way answers what I wrote previously, or if they can see anything I may have missed which warrants a response on my part, please let me know.

It's a bit like feeding a cuckoo in the nest with you, daggett. Over time, every other dickybird gets bored, and leaves.

Now, what have we here.

Usual old codswallop.

>>...apparently the CIA and the Generals thought differently. That is why he was murdered on 22 November 1963.<<

That's what I mean about starting at the wrong end.

You first make the assumption that there is a global conspiracy by a secret cabal of the world elites, and then try to force-fit every other known fact into the same framework.

The assumption you have to make in order to write the above is that Kennedy was assassinated by the "CIA and Generals". In support of this theory, you have no actual evidence. Just another assumption. That "seeing to it that the US military and spy agencies complied with US law" was sufficiently offensive to the "CIA and Generals" that they bumped him off.

I'm still not entirely sure where the global conspiracy by a secret cabal of the world elites fits into the above scenario. But I'm sure you will enlighten us, some day.

Actually, thinking about it, I'm none too confident of that last prediction of mine. Scratch it.

Pericles, wrote, "In support of this theory, you have no actual evidence. Just another assumption."

There's plenty of evidence concerning the conspiracy to murder JFK in this thread as anyone who cares to look will find.

What they will also find this that Pericles has adamantly refused to discuss any of it.

Sorry, daggett, we are just going to have to disagree on your definition of "evidence"

>>There's plenty of evidence concerning the conspiracy to murder JFK in this thread as anyone who cares to look will find.<<

You speculate. You surmise. You indulge in innuendo. You make tenuous connections between unrelated facts. You pass on second and third-hand reported speech from random, unsubstantiated sources. You employ vague allusions. You simply adore insinuation. You hint. You imply.

What you don't have is evidence.

>>What they will also find this that Pericles has adamantly refused to discuss any of it<<

What's to discuss?

Your usual farrago of speculation, surmise, innuendo, allusions, insinuations, hints and implications?

All of which you have cut'n'pasted from the interwebs?

That would be a major waste of time.

As I said I believe I have provided abundant evidence that President Kennedy was murdered by the US security state, and would be happy to provide more if Pericles or anyone else here demonstrated some interested in discussing it.

And Pericles claims I have not.

So, again, I suggest it is best left for others to go back and see for themselves.

---

Pericles said of my contributions, "All of which you have cut'n'pasted from the interwebs?"

... the implication being that I have not put any of my own thought into my posts.

I have already asked Pericles several times before to substantiate this claim with just one example, but instead of providing that example, he just repeats this baseless claim.

That's one area where you have a distinct edge, daggett.

>>I have already asked Pericles several times before to substantiate this claim with just one example, but instead of providing that example, he just repeats this baseless claim.<<

If ever there is an expert on baseless claims, it has to be you.

I reckon you average at least two a day.

Talking of substantiation, can you point me to one single element of your 9/11 scenario that hasn't been cut'n'pasted from the Internet?

Thought not.

Have a great day.

Pericles still refuses to substantiate his allegation made against me.

Pericles wrote, "Talking of substantiation, can you point me to one single element of your 9/11 scenario that hasn't been cut'n'pasted from the Internet?"

If I wanted to be a pedant like Pericles, I would point out that I have cited material not from the Internet. That includes from David Ray Griffin's "The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" of 2009 and "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters" of 2008 by James Douglass.

Interestingly, Pericles has complained that the use of such resources is unfair on my part, because he is unable to easily verify them for himself.

Anyway to deal with the obvious intended meaning of Pericles' allegation and not the literal interpretation of his words:

As I was not a direct participant in the events of 9/11 (except arguably as a distant spectator after the event, by the time I had learned of it) then, obviously all the evidence I provided would have to have been in a sense "cut'n'pasted" from somewhere else. The only alternative to "cutting'n'pasting" is to make it up.

The issue here is Pericles' allegation that I have not put any of my own thought into my posts. As he has failed to substantiate that allegation with even one example, then he must know it to be untrue as anyone who reads my posts for themselves will be able to see.