Nicely re-phrased, daggett.

>>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.<<

Nobody suggested they were "concocted out of thin air".

No doubt, somebody saw something suspicious, and reported it. Given the confusion in the area of the building, this would not be easily checked, but would have been passed on up the chain of command. At some point, it would have been picked up by a journalist, who duly reported it up his chain of command.

No "thin air concoction" required. All very simple and explicable.

And of course the stories were treated seriously. It's highly unlikely they would have been treated any other way. If you were governor, could you take the risk of treating it lightly?

Hardly.

Except of course if the "authorities" wanted to hide the fact there were bombs still in the building. That would be reason enough to not treat them seriously, would it not.

As for this...

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

That's a cop-out. And you know it.

Why can't you "tell us 'who was truly guilty of 9/11'"?

Is it really that difficult?

Or will telling us put your life in danger? I expect you'd like us to believe that.

Pericles' stated reason to dismiss the evidence contained in those lucid and detailed news reports of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 at http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/829.html is no more than conjecture.

At the start of the video there is compelling evidence from an explosives expert, Brigadier General Partin that that truck bomb of mixed fertiliser and fuel could not have caused the structural damage found in the ruins of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

The first news report in that video, contrary to the claim that the destruction was caused by the truck bomb and consistent with General Partin's hypothesis, states that a bomb went off inside the building. Here it is:

"The first bomb that was in the federal building did go off. It did the damage that you see right there. The second explosive was found and de-fused. The third explosive that was found -- and they're working on it right now as we speak. I understand both the second and the third explosives -- if you can imagine this -- were larger than the first. So, try to imagine two or three fold happening of what we have already seen there. It is just incredible to think that there was that much heavy artillery that was somehow moved into the Federal Oklahoma city building."

In another report they state, "It is now confirmed through federal authorities that a second bomb has been found inside that federal building". (Note the words 'confirmed' and 'federal authorities', Pericles.)

Other reports show and describe:

* the use of specialised bomb disposal trailers;
* the deployment of bomb disposal experts and sniffer dogs;
* medical teams being prevented from entering the building to retrieve the injured because of the presence of the two additional bombs.

Pericles would have us accept that so many authoritative people, including Governor Frank Keating, attorney Mike Arnett, President Clinton, medical personnel, bomb disposal experts, either on the scene or in direct communication with those on the scene, had got it all wrong.

(tobecontinued)

As I said that if it was all conjured out of thin air (or, as Pericles tries to put it, from "something suspicious" that "somebody saw") that in itself would surely be newsworthy, especially given that the lives of the injured would have been put at risk because the supposed discovery of bombs that Pericles insists are fictitious prevented medical personnel from entering the building.

Note how Pericles has not responded to that point.

A reasonable person would recognise the content of those videos as incontrovertible evidence of a cover-up to protect those who were truly guilty of that crime.

Only a confirmed government/corporate shill, like Pericles, would continue to insist otherwise.

---

Pericles wrote, "That's a cop-out. And you know it."

Yes, it has to be a cop-out that I haven't re-stated my often stated belief that senior figures in the Bush administration planned and orchestrated 9/11, but I would suggest that that is no more a cop-out than Pericles' refusal to state whom he holds responsible for 9/11 or to explain how it happened.

Pericles asks "Why can't you 'tell us "who was truly guilty of 9/11"'?

"Is it really that difficult?"

(Whoops! One paragraph was omitted from the previous post:)

I would suggest that it would not be difficult at all to explain this to any reasonable person, but the very length of these forums with which Pericles has graced with his presence is surely abundant evidence that explaining this all to him again would be a truly Herculean task.

That's a hoot, daggett.

>>Pericles' stated reason to dismiss the evidence contained in those lucid and detailed news reports of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 is no more than conjecture.<<

And your theories, of course, are not conjecture at all, are they?

>>At the start of the video there is compelling evidence from an explosives expert<<

No, there is simply conjecture.

>>Pericles would have us accept that so many authoritative people, including Governor Frank Keating, attorney Mike Arnett, President Clinton, medical personnel, bomb disposal experts, either on the scene or in direct communication with those on the scene, had got it all wrong.<<

President Clinton believes your story?

That's incredible.

I'd appreciate a reference to that one daggett. Priceless.

>>A reasonable person would recognise the content of those videos as incontrovertible evidence of a cover-up to protect those who were truly guilty of that crime.<<

A reasonable person would understand perfectly that the confusion that surrounds the site of a recently-exploded bomb, with dead and injured all around, could easily lead to the odd misunderstanding and mis-communication.

Only a died-in-the-wool conspiracy nerd would try to suggest otherwise.

But I guess someone has to do it, and it might as well be you.

>>senior figures in the Bush administration planned and orchestrated 9/11<<

That's pretty vague, daggett, even for you.

"Senior figures?" Do you mean senior as in old? If senior in rank, how senior? Was the president involved? Did he approve of the cold-blooded murder of American citizens? Why did he do it?

Be honest with yourself for a moment. You haven't the vaguest clue, do you.

It is all conjecture.

Pericles, has just given yet another excellent impression of being a complete moron.

Luckily, some of us know better.

At least this time we should be grateful that we have been spared the spectacle of filling this forum with his impression baby sounds.

---

In regard to President Clinton, my simple point was that if President Clinton was sending anti-terrorism bomb disposal experts to Oklahoma City, then he obviously accepted the veracity of the reports that there were unexploded bombs inside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

If Pericles were honest -- which we all have painstakingly learnt by now not to be the case -- he would not have wasted our time pretending not to understand my point.

---

I would suggest that there is nothing else in Pericles' latest 'contribution' that has not already been abundantly answered in my most recent three posts, if not before.