JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
...
40
41
42
Page 43
44
›
All

You must think that I have nothing better to do than wait for the pearls of wisdom do drop from your keyboard, daggett.

>>That's a most clever and original comeback, especially considering that it only took Pericles, 25 hours and 32 minutes to come up with<<

Unfortunately, there was on this occasion absolutely nothing material to comment upon. If there had been, you would have seen my usual incisive, crystalline debunking of your confused and chaotic theories.

>>However, there remains a subtle difference between my approach to this discussion<<

Subtle? Hardly.

>>For my part, it's self-evident that I regard Pericles' case as not being backed up by evidence<<

Debunking ridiculous theories requires little by way of evidence, merely an awareness of the limits of credibility.

Thus I need not present an alternative to your "explosives parked on every floor" theory, but merely point out to you the sheer implausibility - outside a Die Hard movie - of the logistics involved.

Nor do I need to offer my own view on how much it would cost to buy the permanent silence of such an extensive band of conspirators, who all agreed, unanimously, to murder their fellow-Americans in cold blood.

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

Couldn't be further from the truth.

By pointing out the glaring flaws in almost everything you write, I am actively encouraging individual research.

I don't specifically object to the notion of or the existence of conspiracy theories. In some cases, they may add a dimension to people's thinking that is of benefit.

But I do draw the line at your telling people, who are already hurting badly, that their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by their own government.

An act that is as cruel as it is self-indulgent.

Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 May 2010 11:56:23 AM

Pericles has a bizarre concept about what are fair rules of debate.

Anyway, ...

Pericles wrote, "Thus I need ... merely point out to you the sheer implausibility - outside a Die Hard movie - of the logistics involved."

I don't recall you ever having done that. Can you show me where?

Pericles wrote, "By pointing out the glaring flaws in almost everything you write, I am actively encouraging individual research."

I don't recall you pointing out the glaring flaws in anything I have written. Can you show me where this happened?

Posted by daggett, Monday, 3 May 2010 9:53:43 PM

Now you're just being silly, daggett.

>>I don't recall you pointing out the glaring flaws in anything I have written. Can you show me where this happened?<<

Pick a post.

Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 May 2010 10:31:19 PM

I didn't think Pericles would.

The reason he won't is that he can't.

Posted by daggett, Monday, 3 May 2010 10:54:40 PM

Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 4 May 2010 8:38:24 AM

At least people can now go back and see for themselves what Pericles would have us believe is his "pointing out the glaring flaws in almost everything [I] write."

Anyone who looks at them will know Pericles to be a liar and, as I wrote, only making these claims as a means to give the impression that he has won an argument that he has, in fact, lost.

---

Most of what is there is Pericles' repeated unsubstantiated insistence that it was logistically impossible for the explosives to have been placed in the towers.

He refuses anywhere to confront evidence on http://ae911truth.org that shows that the official account of the WTC's 'collapses' is in contradiction with the laws of physics. All he has said on this is:

"Unlike you, I am prepared to accept that the building collapsed without the aid of internally-placed explosives. That is therefore 'my own explanation'."

Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it?

If one explanation requires that the laws of physics be disregarded but the only difficulty posed by the competing explanation is that it would have been logistically difficult, we would surely still have to accept the latter explanation.

Another 'argument' people will find is his referring them to supposedly authoritative articles such as http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html which have, in fact, been torn to tiny pieces.

He refused my challenge to put any of those arguments to this forum, preferring, instead, to waffle and play pedantic games.

Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 4 May 2010 11:07:50 AM

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
...
40
41
42
Page 43
44
›
All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy