PynchMe,

Perhaps if you had demonstrated some comprehension of why I believe that 9/11 was a false flag attack and why I believe that President Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were murdered by the US security state, I would be more willing to drop what else is on my plate in order to divulge to you my views here on the Port Arthur Massacre.

If you believe Martin Bryant to be guilty, perhaps you should ask yourself:

What has convinced you of his guilt given that:

1. He was never tried; and

2. He was never asked by the investigating police to retrace his steps and describe how he killed each of the victims he is supposed to have confessed to having killed.

?

The latter is supposed to be standard procedure for any killer who confesses to his/her crime, for example, Julian Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Street_massacre).

?

Pericles wrote, "I have absolutely no wish to 'win' anything, daggett."

To the contrary, Pericles has bloated this forum with repeated lies, ad hominem attacks, fluff, and various debating tricks in his obstinate determination to prevent others from learning the simple truth of 9/11 from the evidence I have provided.

What I won't tolerate is Pericles implying that he has won a debate, which I believe that he has clearly lost, by repeating lies such as:

* I have not answered any of his questions.

* I have not stated what the motive of the 9/11 conspirators might have been.

* I have not demonstrated where the funds to pay for 9/11 could have been found.

* I have not shown how the opportunity existed to plant the necessary explosives in the World Trade Center towers.

* "[My] ability to articulate [my] version of events is significantly hobbled by a lack of evidence, rationale and logic."

* Etc.

Of course, I can't stop Pericles from repeating these lies from now until Hell freezes over, but anyone who takes the trouble to read the substantive content of this discussion, that he has tried so hard to bury, will see those lies for what they are.

There is no debate here, daggett.

>>What I won't tolerate is Pericles implying that he has won a debate, which I believe that he has clearly lost, by repeating lies such as:

* I have not answered any of his questions.<<

Rephrase: there are some very basic questions to which you do not provide answers, but instead simply re-state other people's speculation and innuendo. Also, you repeatedly refuse to accept that there is a significant impediment to coercing large numbers of Americans to murder their fellow-citizens in cold blood. Which is kind-of essential to your "theories".

>>* I have not stated what the motive of the 9/11 conspirators might have been.<<

You have certainly offered an opinion on what it "might have been". Unfortunately, it doesn't actually stand up to the barest scrutiny.

>>* I have not demonstrated where the funds to pay for 9/11 could have been found.<<

You most definitely have not "demonstrated" anything of the sort. You have simply latched onto the fact that the Defense budget is riddled with waste, and assumed that this indicates large-scale embezzlement - again, without a shred of evidence.

>>* I have not shown how the opportunity existed to plant the necessary explosives in the World Trade Center towers.<<

Which you haven't, have you. Go on, admit it. Your theory requires the collaboration of so many people, it is thoroughly unfeasible.

>>* "[My] ability to articulate [my] version of events is significantly hobbled by a lack of evidence, rationale and logic."<<

And I thought I was being polite when I said that. I could just as easily have said that your ability was hobbled by staring too long at the moon.

>>* Etc.<<

Etc., indeed.

No debate. Just simple, straightforward facts.

Perhaps it's about time the Pericles stopped further bloating this forum with posts which add nothing to the discussion other than to repeat his previous subjective pronouncements that I have produced no evidence and not argued logically.

Perhaps Pericles should trust others to work that out for themselves.

Perhaps it's about time that daggett stopped further bloating this forum with posts which add nothing to the discussion other than to repeat his previous subjective pronouncements that have produced no evidence and are not argued logically.

Couldn't resist, I'm afraid, it was just too pefect.

That's a most clever and original comeback, especially considering that it only took Pericles, 25 hours and 32 minutes to come up with (as he was evidently tearing his hair out trying to think of come-backs on the related forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=40).

However, there remains a subtle difference between my approach to this discussion and Pericles' approach that Pericles would have us believe he has not grasped.

For my part, it's self-evident that I regard Pericles' case as not being backed up by evidence and his arguments are illogical, etc., so I don't feel any useful purpose is served by my telling this to other visitors over and over again. I would prefer that they read my posts and the posts to which they are in response and work it out for themselves.

Clearly, Pericles hopes that proclaiming my posts to be lacking in evidence and logic will dissuade visitors from checking for themselves.