For those pondering the meaning of:

chk chk boom

... written twice so far in this forum by Pericles:

It's from that video that Pericles provided a link to at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MZffvS0yDo

It's a female eyewitness to violent incident outside an Australian nightclub filmed on channel 9 news. Apparently she was describing how a young person of southern European appearance (or in her terms a 'wog') cocked a handgun and then fired it.

I really know nothing more of the incident or whether her testimony proved to be reliable or not.

Perhaps Pericles would be kind enough to enlighten the rest of us as to what point he was attempting to make.

The British Government has been forced to admit that it wrongly arrested and jailed for five months a person accused of training the 9/11 hijackers:

£250K PAYOUT FOR 9/11 SLUR PILOT

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/171123/-250k-payout-for-9-11-slur-pilot

A PILOT wrongly accused of training the September 11 bombers is in line for compensation of up to £250,000.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced yesterday that Lotfi Raissi is eligible for a pay-out, ...

...

Mr Raissi, 33, was arrested at his home in Colnbrook, Berkshire, days after the 2001 terror attacks in the US.

The FBI discovered he was at the same flight school as one of the suicide killers.

US investigators accused him of being the “lead instructor” for the gang and he was held at Belmarsh jail in south-east London for five months before being released on bail.

He was completely exonerated and the Court of Appeal criticised the way his case was handled.

---

Of course, anyone who has read this discussion with open eyes would have worked out long ago who was truly guilty of 9/11 -- the same people who ignored warnings from an instructor, amongst others, of suspicious students, most likely at the same school that Lotfi Rassi had the misfortune to have attended.

Oh, please daggett.

>>I really know nothing more of the incident or whether her testimony proved to be reliable or not. Perhaps Pericles would be kind enough to enlighten the rest of us as to what point he was attempting to make.<<

If you want me to spell it out for you as if you had just arrived from another planet, here goes.

You pointed out...

>>as reported by the media at the time, two additional bombs, of which we have never heard of since, were discovered and defused within the Alfred P. Murrah building.<<

I gave you the "chk chk boom" reference to indicate, in a shorthand form, that...

"as reported by the media at the time, the attack was witnessed by Clare Werbeloff, who described in detail the altercation"

Unfortunately, despite the fact it was completely fictitious, her "eye-witness" version formed the centerpiece of every early news bulletin. Once it was discovered that she hadn't even been there, her account of the event disappeared.

I was illustrating the connection between news rooms in Oklahoma City broadcasting unsubstantiated reports, and news rooms in Sydney broadcasting unsubstantiated reports. With the added excuse for Oklahoma City newsrooms, that they were just a little bit busier than normal that day.

Now, I would appreciate it if you could return the favour.

>>Of course, anyone who has read this discussion with open eyes would have worked out long ago who was truly guilty of 9/11 -- the same people who ignored warnings from an instructor, amongst others, of suspicious students, most likely at the same school that Lotfi Rassi had the misfortune to have attended.<<

Assume, as I did for you earlier in this post, that I have just landed from another planet, and tell us "who was truly guilty of 9/11", and how you reached that determination. And why we should necessarily reach the same conclusion.

If it is as obvious as you would have us believe, you can do it in a couple of paragraphs, as I did.

You have no idea how much I am looking forward to your explanation.

Pericles wrote:

"I gave you the 'chk chk boom' reference to indicate, in a shorthand form, that..."

Most clever. Pity that I had no idea what Pericles was talking about.

Why he presumes I did, I also have no idea.

Perhaps it would have saved everyone a lot of time if he had just simply explicitly spelt out his point in the first place, instead of giving the impression of being an imbecile who thinks it amusing to repeatedly make baby sounds.

I am not sure how it logically follows from the fact that that one Channel 9 news report had no basis that therefore that reporting of the discovery of two additional bombs in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City also had no basis.

Could you please explain, Pericles?

Ah, daggett, you should try to keep up with what's going on in the real world, you know.

>>I am not sure how it logically follows from the fact that that one Channel 9 news report had no basis that therefore that reporting of the discovery of two additional bombs in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City also had no basis.<<

It was an example, daggett, of a news report going to air before it had been checked for validity. It happens, you know.

The "reporting of two additional bombs" in Oklahoma City came at a time when it was less, rather than more, likely that the producers in the newsroom insisted it be checked. Especially as other channels were saying the same thing.

You are relying for your conspiracy theory on two things:

One, that the news stations concerned stopped speculating on the "existence" of the two bombs.

"Proof from absence" is a well-understood facet of conspiracy theory, and one that you use yourself. Quite often.

And two, that Dr Randall Heather said that they could find out who was responsible, from "the unexploded bomb".

You - and all the other conspiracy-weenies - assume that this meant that he had seen the bomb himself. However, if he had simply heard on the TV news that there was another bomb, unexploded, his statement still makes total sense.

Allowing for the heat of the moment, he should have said:

"If there were a second bomb, and it turns out that it is unexploded, then we will be able to tell who made it"

Once again, much is made of the fact that he "hasn't been heard of since".

If you'd made a gaffe like that on national TV, you'd keep pretty quiet too, wouldn't you daggett?

Incidentally, I notice you use this as a cover for your lack of response to my request:

>>...tell us "who was truly guilty of 9/11", and how you reached that determination. And why we should necessarily reach the same conclusion.<<

Any offers?

I find it hard to believe that Pericles writes any of this with a straight face.

---

Pericles wrote, "The 'reporting of two additional bombs' in Oklahoma City came at a time when it was less, rather than more, likely that the producers in the newsroom insisted it be checked. "

Pericles asserts that it was "less likely" that the story was checked.

And from this we are meant to draw the inference that therefore they weren't checked.

Personally I can't conceive of how a story about the discovery of two unexploded bombs and their disarming could have been concocted out of thin air and then reported as lucidly as they were and how both Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and terrorism expert, Dr. Randall Heather would have treated these stories seriously.

If, indeed, that was the case, then I thought that that would have been newsworthy in itself.

At the very least I would have thought that the public would have been entitled to an explanation.

But none was ever offered as far as I am aware.

---

Pericles demands, "tell us 'who was truly guilty of 9/11', and how you reached that determination. And why we should necessarily reach the same conclusion."

As I wrote, "anyone who has read this discussion with open eyes would have worked out long ago who was truly guilty of 9/11."

As far as I am concerned, I have more than adequately explained that a long time ago.

Why should anyone be in the least bit concerned if Pericles claims he is unable to work this out?