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)