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.