Well up to your usual standard, daggett.

>>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.<<

Except that he didn't "accept the veracity" daggett. He reacted to the possibility that it might be true.

Just like every one else in the loop of authority - Fire Chief, Mayor, State Governor, whoever - they could not possibly have acted any differently.

If there is a report of a bomb in the building, they had absolutely no choice but to act on it as if it were true.

The fact that it turned out not to be true was irrelevant to their response.

Just as if you are an "expert", and are called upon to comment on the implication of further bombs being there, you wouldn't for a moment suggest that you are allowed to check the evidence yourself. You'd just answer the questions as if it were already proven - including the observation that their unexploded nature would provide a clue to the perpetrators.

>>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.<<

You can suggest anything you like, daggett. It is a free country.

But you are unlikely to be any more convincing than you are on any other aspect of the case.

Simply stated, you believe that "senior figures in the Bush administration planned and orchestrated 9/11".

Who were they? What was their motive? What did they have to gain? How did they "plan and orchestrate it"? How many others did they involve in their plans? How much did those people need to be paid? What happened to all the people who - out of simple patriotism or humanity - refused to sign up to the plot?

You haven't even attempted to answer these.

Which is understandable. Since you cannot.

Typically, Pericles plays yet more games with the meaning of words, continues to split hairs and continues make carping demands that I answer questions I have already answered over and over again already, whilst hoping that no-one notices that he has neither produced a shred of evidence to support the view he is defending nor properly answered any of my questions.

Pericles wrote: "The fact that it turned out not to be true was irrelevant to their response."

Well I would sure like to know how Pericles learned that the stories reported at http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/829.html were not true.

Carping demands, daggett?

>>Typically, Pericles plays yet more games with the meaning of words, continues to split hairs and continues make carping demands that I answer questions I have already answered over and over again already<<

Let's call them "suggestions", shall we?

My suggestion to you is that you have made absolutely no case at all in support of your claim that "senior figures in the Bush administration planned and orchestrated 9/11".

I demand nothing. Certainly nothing for myself. But if you wish to retain the remotest shred of credibility, I suggest you at least take an honest stab at answering those few, very basic questions.

Totally unselfishly, I would like you to have the opportunity to present yourself in the most attractive light possible.

The floor is yours. Your audience is ready, and waits only for your summary of the key points - a few sentences should cover it.

Who were the senior figures in the Bush administration who planned and orchestrated 9/11? What was their motive? What did they have to gain, that they couldn't gain by less murderous means? How did they "plan and orchestrate it"? How many others did they involve in their plans? How much did those people need to be paid? What happened to all the people who - out of simple patriotism or humanity - refused to sign up to the plot?

Far from being a "carping demand" daggett, it is a golden opportunity for you to regain some much-needed authority on the subject.

I think I can cope perfectly well with Pericles' stated view that I don't have a shred of credibility, but he should speak for himself and not for others.

Pericles demands:

"Who were the senior figures in the Bush administration who planned and orchestrated 9/11? ..."

I have already said many times who I believe some of them were. If you weren't paying attention, then too bad.

"What was their motive? What did they have to gain, that they couldn't gain by less murderous means?"

Already answered.

"How did they 'plan and orchestrate it'?"

How can I know for sure? That's why we need a proper inquiry to find out.

"How many others did they involve in their plans?"

See previous response.

"How much did those people need to be paid?"

See previous response.

"What happened to all the people who - out of simple patriotism or humanity - refused to sign up to the plot?"

If you had paid attention, you would know that I have already addressed this point as best I could. Obviously only a full investigation can hope to provide a more complete answer.

---

Note Pericles' failure to respond to:

"Well I would sure like to know how Pericles learned that the stories reported at http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/829.html were not true."

Thank you for confirming that you really don't have a clue, daggett.

You don't know who was behind whatever-it-was.

You don't know why they did whatever-it-was.

You don't even know what whatever-it-was was, until there is "a proper inquiry to find out."

You don't know who actually carried out whatever-it-was, or how much they were paid for whatever-it-was, or what happened to the people who declined to be involved in whatever-it-was.

That would appear to be an accurate summary of what you have told us.

Oh, one additional point. You still don't know where the money came from that was necessary to fund whatever-it-was.

>>If you had paid attention, you would know that I have already addressed this point as best I could. Obviously only a full investigation can hope to provide a more complete answer.<<

But what exactly are they investigating, daggett? Since you don't know, how do you expect them to?

>>"Well I would sure like to know how Pericles learned that the stories reported at http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/829.html were not true."<<

Not "learned", daggett.

"Came to a conclusion based on the clear balance of probabilities" is a more accurate description.

I think a reasonable person would understand that there is a big difference between on the one hand not knowing all the answers and on the other hand "not having a clue".

---

In regard to Pericles' repeated and intentionally misleading insistence that the money to pay for the staging of 9/11 could not possibly have been found, I refer people to:

"Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo

"McKinney Grills Rumsfeld" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

And some of the posts which make reference to them in the forum "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions":

1 April 2010 7:13:37 AM at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=21
1 April 2010 12:04:49 PM
1 April 2010 12:06:30 PM at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=22

---

I note that Pericles has still failed to explain to us how he knows for a fact that all the stories reported in http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/829.html were untrue

His statement was clear and unambiguous:

"The fact that it turned out not to be true was irrelevant to their response."

Yet he has failed to either substantiate that statement or withdraw it.