(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.