USA / Israel relations have been in turmoil recently.see http://www.voltairenet.org/article164852.html Joe Biden the vice Preseident of USA was visiting Israel in March this year,and Israel proceeded to forcibly take more Palistinian Land in East Jerusalem building 1600 new settlements.This was seen as a slap in the face for the USA.Hilary Clinton even weighed into the debate critising Israel.

Now Admiral Mullen Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, visited Israel in Aug 09 and then in Feb 10, raising the events of 1967 when Israel attacked the US Liberty in a false flag attack trying to get the USA to attack Egypt, whom Israel was fighting in the 6 day war.
Admiral Mullen made clear his displeasure at Israel's attempts to create a conflict with Iran.He has stated that Iran is no threat and Israel's behaviour is threatening the lives of US soldiers in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton & Joe Biden have since backed down,getting Congress to sign a letter of allegiance to Israel,promising not to criticise them.Congress has also by a vote of 400-11 brought in sanctions against Iran to limit their trade.Iran has the oil but not the means of refining it.So they are vunerable to sanctions.

AIPAC ( America Israel Public Affairs Committee) is said to be the most powerful lobby group in the USA.There are only 5 million people of Jewish origin living in pop of 308 million.How do they wield so much influence?

Does Israel Control the USA?

No.

Wow where are all the posts.
It seems this might be a bit hot for some.
The whole Israel thing is really complex, who is right and who is wrong.
When did it start and who started it?
your guess is as good as mine.
The one thing i am sure of is that Israel has the west so completely over the guilt barrel because of WW2 that they are not game to insist that they be responsible in their reactions to the Palestinians feeble attempts at self defence.
I think we all know that the occupied territories are completely unacceptable and the pre 67 boarders must be returned as soon as political stability can be returned to Palestine.

Dear Arjay,

You're not likely to be in a position to have
something worth saying unless you've spent
years immersing yourself in gaining knowledge,
experience, and understanding, and only then
if your agenda isn't hostile. Unless you've
got real experience and knowledge, what
can you say that won't sound foolish, or at
worse bigoted?

NO.
I however will never understand why I felt the need to reply.

Israel does not rule the world but the God of Israel soon will. His patience will run out with the godless Governments that He allows for a short time.

So according to many like Foxy it is OK to take Palistinian land forcibly and expel them from their land.It is alright for Israel to have it's own form of apathied but any criticism of Israel is racist?

How about confronting the issues I've raised Foxy? What is good for the South Africian apathied goose must be also good for the Israeli apathied gander?

I'm not really sure if America controls Israel or vice versa, or if apples cost more at the supermarket than onions this week.
On the other hand, there has been a wealth of television-based evidence that Davross controls the Daleks.
I also reckon theres a strong link between smoking way too much hooter and sitting round cooking up paranoid conspiracy theories, a good harvest down south this year maybe?

Patthebogan,not a vey good attempt at strawman argument.Like those before ,you have not confronted any facts.I was merely posing the question.We are not working in the realm of theory here.The Liberty incident of 1967 was not theory.It is historical fact that Israel tried to blame the murder of US sailors on Egypt.Apparently the US was considering using a nuclear weapon on Egypt.

Israel's aggression towards Iran is important to peace.Sanctions against Iraq led to a war and it's invasion under false pretenses.China gets 40% of it's oil from the Persian Gulf.A war with Iran will create enormous economic hardship and great loss of life not to mention the possibility of war with China.

Many do not want to understand the gravity of the situation and ignore Israel's flagrant aggression.

Arjay,

You lost me at the title, and followed that up by using a conspiracy theorist website as evidence. Doing that isn't actually evidence, it's still just a conspiracy theory.

As for tackling the 'issues', I fundamentally disagree with the title of the post, so then anything that comes after could reasonably be assumed to be tripe. Turns out, it was ... IMO. Just as in your opinion, it isn't.

The other thing is that you've been posting your conspiracies here for ages, and I've read many. I KNOW that you don't discuss - based on previous experiences - you preach. So, any attempt by me to debate will be a personal waste of time as there's other things I'd rather be doing with pointlessly bashing away at the keyboard. Like playing poker on Facebook.

Dear Arjay,

I was responding to the title of this thread.
"Does Israel Control the USA?"

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a separate
issue.

Of course Israel controls America. How?

Well most of the American MSM is owned by Jews for starters so they can control what the public thinks or is told. Jewish people are ensconced in think-tanks and at every level of government which gives them undue influence. Jewish people control lots of money and can use it for political donations to politicians favorable to Israel.

Of course the question of whether America allows itself to be manipulated by Israel in order to facilitate its own imperial designs is another issue.

DavidG."The US uses Israel to facilitate it's own imperial designs?"
Well we seem to a conflict to interest here alluded to by Admiral Mullen.Israel's stealing of Palistinian land the consequent submission of the USA to Israel's demands, sends a clear message to the Middle Eastern oil countries which will deal with the likes of BP EXXON Mobil etc.

Israel by it's insistance of sanctions against Iran is increasing tensions for no good reason.We are still in the midst of the GFC and we have similar conditions that led up to WW2.

Peace in the Middle East will not happen unless justice is seen to be done.

Arjay, Israel has a very good reason to want to attack Iran.

Iran is the only country that stands in the road of its long-term plan to create <b>Greater Israel,</b> a nation which will include land belonging to all its neighbors and the extinction of Lebanon and Jordan (see map on my blog).

If Israel toes the American line, the U.S. will be quite happy to facilitate this development!

DavidG. The Middle East is too important for us to constantly appease Israel's aggression.A nuclear war could easily start there since China does access 40% of it's oil from the Persian Gulf.

The USA seems impotent and now the Arab states know that the USA has totally folded to their desires there will be more instability .Israel brags about having hundreds of nukes pointed at their enemies.It has totally ignored the nuclear no-proliferation treaty and now shoves these nukes in our faces with defiance!

I think is time for all countries on this planet to bring all these lunatics to the table of peace and sanity.China,Russia,India countries of Europe ,Africa and South America should put aside their differences and read the riot act to Israel and the neo cons in the USA.The economic and military weight of the planet can avert a disaster. 2012 does not have to be the bibical apocalypse unless we let it happen.

Arjay, I agree with your last comment entirely and have been saying the same things for years.

Imperial America and imperial Israel both threaten world peace and need to be put in their place.

Yes David G. To give our bystanders a taste of human depravity, let's look domestically whereby a father's revenge upon his ex-wife was to murder his own children as a show of dominance and revenge.This psychopathic behaviour has be well documented.To most of us,it is beyond our comprehension.

Now this is the sort of mentality we are now confronting within the US and Israel.Their plans have been hatching for decades and in the face of failure,these few psychopaths like Hitler will take us and themselves beyond the brink!

Zibigniew Brzezinski is a case in point and is one of Obama's foreign policy advisors.They have studied the brains of these non-empathetic people and the physical voids reflect their callous behaviour.

Failure for these lunatics is not an option.They do not think like us.They do not care for future generations.Winning in the present tense is all that matters.So we should not assume that leaders of any description are infallible or indeed of noble intentions.

Unless we the people get involved,then lunatics will rule.

Imperial America and imperial Israel both threaten world peace and need to be put in their place.
David G,
65 years ago they tried to do that at the cost of 40 million lives .

>>>Imperial America and imperial Israel both threaten world peace and need to be put in their place.<<<

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA You clowns realize we've been at war for the last 7 years. Al Qaeda has been letting for bombs left, right and centre, and more countries are in conflict, than not. That's the world peace they're threatening?.

I love how in your reality Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Hamas and Co. are the peace loving hippies. You guys need to get out more.

Arjay,

Everyone knows that the CIA controls the world via satellite rays beamed directly into your skull.

A aluminium foil hat would help shield them and let people know that you are the only clear thinker and that everyone else is just being controlled.

OF COURSE ISRAEL CONTROLS THE USA!

Democritus is being ingenuous in pretending not to notice. Either that or he is part of the nefarious Zionist conspiracy.

But the real question is this:

WHO CONTROLS ISRAEL?

After many years of research I have managed to identify the current controller of Israel. See:

http://www.comcast.com/MediaLibrary/1/1/About/PressRoom/Images/LogoAndMediaLibrary/Photography/CableNetworks/Noddy2.jpg

I have recieved credible and reliable information (*taps side of nose conspiratorially* *winks to confirm authenticity*), that an aluminium foil hat will only stop a percentage of the mind-control beams transmitted by both the CIA and Mossad. To fully insulate against the beams, it makes more sense to make a hat from lead roof flashing. Alternatively, a motorcycle helmet covered in fridge magnets affords a reasonable level of protection, but is very difficult to swim in.

Who controls Israel? A mob of crazies who think they are the Children of some mythical God and that they are entitled to do whatever they like including nuking Iran!

If that doesn't concern you, then you obviously think the earth is flat!

P.S. The 'foil hat' image made me laugh. Thanks.

Arjay, paranoia is not a good way to relate to the rest of the world. The violent projection fantasies of the media and governments in the Middle East are sadly twisted to conceal that they repeatedly tried to exterminate the Jews, and failed every time. It seems they use their language to twist events to a 'reality' that suits their self-image, but is not helping to act rationally.

We laughed at Comical Ali, and we ought to laugh at you Arjay.

LOL David G

Of course I don't think the Earth is flat. Everyone knows it's shaped like a tesseract.

See:

http://etholos.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/tesseract.gif

Arjay, you are getting some very sound advice here, I hope you will listen to it.

All jokes about tin-foil aside, you would do well to question your sources a little more, before leaping into print on a topic of which you know very little (as Foxy tried gently to point out).

StG also gave you a not-so-small hint:

>>You lost me at the title, and followed that up by using a conspiracy theorist website as evidence. Doing that isn't actually evidence, it's still just a conspiracy theory.<<

voltairenet, I'm afraid, is not a particularly reliable source. On its front page, for example, it advertises Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terror", as an indicator of its editorial policy.

Tarpley, in fact, does a fabulous job in disqualifying himself from any vestige of impartiality, with the following description of his immediate reaction to the news of 9/11, which he heard first in Berlin:

"I immediately concluded that the events of that day, because of their scope, complexity, and technical precision, could not have been possible without the massive complicity of a faction of the US political and military command structure... It was also clear to me that the goal of this operation was a new world war on a vast scale – something along the lines of the Thirty Years’ War of 1618-1648, which killed about a third of the population of central Europe."
"911: Synthetic Terrorism Made in USA" by Webster Griffin Tarpley.

Like Tarpley, you "immediately conclude" something, which from that point on guides all your thought processes.

Something you might like to reflect upon, at some point.

Pericles,you are not that stupid.911 was an inside job.The scientific facts attest to this.You haven't a hope in hades of disproving the scientific facts even on WTC 7.You have faltered at every step in past debates on 911 and are just here as nuisance value to try and discredit others with whom you disagee.You are intellectually dishonest.

There is no doubt that the Middle East is serious crisis and Israel/USA neo-cons need to be brought to account.Iran has been deemed by both General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen be no threat to Israel or the USA.Why are there now sanctions on Iran? Sanctions on Iraq resulted in it's invasion under false pretenses of there being weapons of mass destruction.It was always about the oil and now Iran is the really big prize with the military industrial complex aided by Congress,stealing from a nation that has invaded no one.It is ethically wrong.We are no better than Hitler's Nazis if we condone this behaviour.

The invasion of Iran will cause the Arab World to erupt.China and Russia will not stand by and see energy sources of the planet being monopolised by a few power hungry psychopaths.

There are many Jewish people who are just as horrified as us.I met some at the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth International Conference in Sydney in Nov last year.So don't Foxy, give me all the rubbish about this being a bigotted exercise.

So the tag of alarmist and delusional tin foil mad hatters, more likely fits those with their heads in the sand.

Arjay: <<...alarmist and delusional tin foil mad hatters, more likely fits those with their heads in the sand >>

That would be very uncomfortable, wouldn't it - not to mention leaving one's arse completely exposed to penetration by those satellite rays from the CIA.

CJ Morgan,you are truely pathetic.You like Pericles refuse to enter into debate about specific facts and logic.Ad Hominem is your best defence,which betrays your under handed intent.

Your posts enlighten and entertain me Arjay always; some of your theories encourages people [excluding Foxy] out of their comfort zones generally speaking.

Why do I feel so sad and sorry for Palestinians [never visited or met any Palestinians to my knowledge]with the exception of viewing their smelly more genuine leader on documentaries over the years.

It actually hits me in the heart when I have viewed footage of both Israel and Palestine fighting. The Old fellow did not manipulate or use the western world to fight or retaliate unlike Israeli Presidents now and in the past.

Israel has been assisted greatly by the USA which is extremely unfair to the Palestinians.

You should know better by now, Arjay, it's a great shame that you don't.

>>Pericles,you are not that stupid.911 was an inside job.The scientific facts attest to this.<<

Not a single scientific fact attests to your theory, Arjay. It is no more than rampant speculation.

>>You haven't a hope in hades of disproving the scientific facts even on WTC 7<<

In your opinion. In mine, there are no scientific facts to disprove. Only, as I said, merely blindly anti-government innuendo.

>>You have faltered at every step in past debates on 911 and are just here as nuisance value to try and discredit others with whom you disagee.You are intellectually dishonest.<<

You are fully entitled to your opinion, Arjay, and I'm sorry if my presence here makes you nervous and uncomfortable. But I have the exact same right to my views, and to express them, as you have.

As far as I am concerned, no-one has even come close to demonstrating that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government against its own people. Furthermore, as I have pointed out to daggett on a number of occasions, there is no evidence of anyone actually taking part in the cold-blooded murder of their fellow-Americans. Given that there is no discernible motive for the act in the first place, recruiting highly-skilled saboteurs to murder innocent civilians would not be accomplished without leaving some clues.

But I accept that I am wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. By the same token, you should accept that you are not going to persuade me that there is a vast world-wide conspiracy under way, and that everything that you see around you every day points to it.

However, I am not going to stand idly by and watch you regurgitate every one of your wacky ideas, without exercising my right to respond.

Have a great day. And try not to worry so much. They're not really out to get you, you know.

An interesting and pertinent article from "The Drum":

<< Evidence is overrated when you're a conspiracy theorist

Stephan Lewandowsky

3 May 2010

Why would anyone believe that Prince Phillip is running the world drug trade? Why do some people believe that NASA faked the moon landing? Why is the internet abuzz with claims that 9/11 was an "inside job" of the Bush administration?

Conspiracy theories are part and parcel of modern life and some people clearly find their allure irresistible.

The nature of conspiracy theories and their ultimate fate is reasonably well understood by cognitive scientists, who have identified three core properties. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2888700.htm

I daresay it will be lost on the likes of Arjay, daggett and other conspiracy nuts who most need to read it.

CJ, thanks for the article.

Even though does serve only to confirm your status as a fully paid-up nark for the New World Order, bending to the will of the secret cabal of international banksters.

Should we perhaps work on our secret handshake next?

Pericles, CJ Morgan

Ever wonder why evidence to the contrary just seems to strengthen some people's weird beliefs.

Why NO amount of evidence can shake a creationist or believer in UFO abductions?

Perhaps this can shed some light on the mystery.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/01/bad-science-election-smears

On a serious note, didnt the war against Lebanon raise an interesting question, that of a proportional response in conflict.
Specifically, that the Lebanese had more limited resources, such as firing dodgy rockets indiscriminately into the Israeli suburbs. Whereas, the Israelis have helicopter gunships and well resourced intelligence agency. Would it have been fairer to simply fire indiscriminately into the Lebanese suburbs with dodgy rockets as a response?
Unfortunately, both sides have god on their side. To religious folks, the real estate is very high value in that neck of the woods. There's a lot of oil in the area, and a lot of highly strung Medterranean folks. We could talk about it forever, mostly because they will be fighting over one thing or another forever.

Re does Israel control the U.S.
The state of Israel is really the sum of its parts to a greater degree than most nations on earth. What I mean is that even though Israel is a secular state the binding of the nation is not the geographical land mass, not even the commonly spoken tongue, it is the Jewish religion itself. A religion that has bound a scattered nation for two thousand years, it's a genetic club for want of a better descriptive. During WWII the Americans did not help the Jews of Europe to any great degree. But post war the influence of powerful rich Jews certainly helped Congress to consider Israel favorably. The other factor of the post war era was the Soviets backing of the majority of Arab states. We have witnessed fifty years of this power play between the U.S and the Soviets (if you back one side I back the other. With the frosty start of the Obama administration with Israel I do not believe it is a "political party" issue. Census shows that the Jews of the U.S. vote 50/50, but the influential Jews vote Republican along with the orthodox Jewry. This change of guard may be at the basis of the frosty start to U.S. / Israeli détente.

Pericles: << confirm your status as a fully paid-up nark for the New World Order, bending to the will of the secret cabal of international banksters. >>

Ssssshhhh - remember, our handlers told us to keep it secret...

<< Should we perhaps work on our secret handshake next? >>

OMG - I feel a Freemason conspiracy rant coming on :D

CJ, Pericles, Steven

Share Tip: buy up big on Comalco shares I think there's about to be a rush on Aluminium foil hats.

Steven,
The scientific paper cited in the article makes interesting reading.

Regards
examinator.

Sonofgloin said:
"With the frosty start of the Obama administration with Israel I do not believe it is a "political party" issue. Census shows that the Jews of the U.S. vote 50/50, but the influential Jews vote Republican along with the orthodox Jewry. This change of guard may be at the basis of the frosty start to U.S. / Israeli détente."

Wierd. American jewish commentators seem to be under the impression that most American jews vote Dem. The neocons are called that because they are a minority that thought stuff out from a different viewpoint and became conservative.

CJ Morgan, I see your point, but it aint, just observation. I covered other other reasons, not just the fiscalopoly.

ChrisPer

and others

In 2008 Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote. In 2004 Kerry only managed 75%.

See: http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3618408,00.html

The Dems rarely get less than 70% of the Jewish vote.

Gore lost in 2000 because Muslim voters in Florida abandoned the Dems because of Lieberman, Gore's Jewish running mate. Had Florida Muslims voted for the Dems in their usual numbers Gore would have romped home.

Examinator

Glad you liked the paper.

So all the happy laughing fools can now explain the following about
WTC 7.
1/ It took 6 yrs for a shame report to which stopped at the moment of collapse and was not able to explain freefall speeds.

2/ Prof David Chandler has demostrated that for 2.5 sec this building of 186 m tall at absolute freefall speeds and no plane impacted it.It reached a maximum speed of 144 kph.

3/The BBC reported it had collapsed 20 minutes before the actual event.

4/Never before or since have concrete steel re-forced building collapsed due to fire,much less in their own footprints.There was no pan caking of floors.Most of the concrete was pulverised to dust.What force does this?

5/Dr Frank Legge,whom I've also met is the Australian who was on Prof Neils Harrit's team of 9 international scientists positively proving the use of nano thermite in April 2009.Al Queda did not have the technology.

6/Building 7 came down in a classic controlled demolition style.It have the tell tale crimp in the middle where the central columns are blown first,to bring the building in on itself.

7/Many people reported the sound of explosions before the building descended.In fact you can see on youtube people been told to run for their lives because she's gonna blow.

8/ Larry Silverstein had the lease for the towers and took over the lease on building some weeks before 911.He had them all well insured for terrorist attacks and made a huge profit.The twin towers were full of asbestos and it would have cost hundreds of millions to get rid of it.

9/Larry is seen on youtube saying,".....there was so much death and destruction that we decided to give the order to pull it. And so we pulled it and watched the building come down." Later Larry denied this saying he meant pull the firemen out.Firemen were never in the building to be pulled out.Now "pull" is a demolition term for pulling the foundations by explosives.It takes weeks to prepare a building for demolition, which Larry initially did not know.

The anomolies just go on and on.

Uh oh, there goes the neighbourhood

Start refuting the evidence Pericles.It is time to put your logic where your bravado lies.Can you do it point by point or do you need help?

stevenlmeyer - just a quick thanks for the link to a very interesting article and the research on which it's based.

I'm still thinking about it. I love research that comes up with counterintuitive results :)

Thank you Pericles.I would never have seen this one had it not been for your derision and others like GJ Morgan and Stevenlmeyer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-G_Ru-x2M-

Here we see not only the evidence of Larry Silverstein say he was consulting with his insurance company to have WTC 7 demolished but Larry on video "...we made the decision to pull it and we watched the building come down." In this clip we see Larry actually use his hands to mimic the collapse of the building,so here is the incontravertable proof that Larry meant the controlled demolition of WTC 7.His hands showing the downward movement of WTC 7 clearly show what he meant by "Pull it".Larry thought WTC7 could have been wired for demolition for in a few hours and would collect $5 billion in insurance.

See also Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change.I also met him and bought him a beer at Darling Harbour on the day before the conference.

You see Pericles,I've done my homework.You and these other clowns are really pathetic.

Let me see if I have this right, Arjay.

>>we see Larry actually use his hands to mimic the collapse of the building,so here is the incontravertable proof that Larry meant the controlled demolition of WTC 7<<

So, someone waving their hands is incontrovertible proof that the building was demolished.

Presumably, Larry also hired those guys to fly passenger planes full of people into the other two buildings, so that exploding his own building would go unnoticed.

Yep, well up to your usual standard.

>>You and these other clowns are really pathetic<<

And after that, you call *us* clowns?

Classic.

Have a real close look at those Silverstein hands Pericles.They were not waving about but descended in unison just like WTC 7.

This clown should in court charged with being an accomplist to terrorism.

Ok, let's go through it all again, with the benefit of your additional input, Arjay.

>>we see Larry actually use his hands to mimic the collapse of the building,so here is the incontravertable proof that Larry meant the controlled demolition of WTC 7... Have a real close look at those Silverstein hands Pericles.They were not waving about but descended in unison just like WTC 7.<<

So, someone waving their hands, descending in unison "just like WTC7" is incontrovertible proof that the building was demolished.

Presumably, Larry also hired those guys to fly passenger planes full of people into the other two buildings, so that exploding his own building would go unnoticed.

Yep, well up to your usual standard, Arjay.

>>You and these other clowns are really pathetic... This clown should in court charged with being an accomplist to terrorism.<<

And you call *us* clowns?

Epic.

Pericles ,you are distorting the reality.Larry changed his story saying he meant to pull the firemen out.Now the facts reveal his real intent of having WTC7 demolished by explosives.Larry has been reported ringing his insurance company that day seeking permission to "pull it".Now Larry thought is was logistically possible for a building to be wired for demolition in a few hours.WTC 7 as Larry knew was already wired for demolition and it would be on the media.So the ruse would be to say we needed to demo it that afternoon for safety reasons.He was caught out a beauty.

It takes weeks to wire a building that is not on fire for a controlled demolition.When Larry realised this,he tried to change his story and thus has been caught out.

He was not the master mind of this plot,he came along for the ride to make money.Thus he is complicit in this crime and should be charged.

Arjay, I'm not entirely sure that you know what you are saying here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment, but you really ought to take a deep breath and think it through again.

Are you seriously suggesting that, if the planes hitting the twin towers had not happened, WTC7 would have been demolished anyway, for the insurance money?

Is that what you are saying?

You refuse to listen pericles.WTC 7 was supposed to come down in the dust and rubble of the towers.Something went wrong and it's demo was delayed for 6 hrs.Perhaps another plane was destined to hit it.Was is flight 93 or some other flight that never got off the ground?

The opinions of people like Prof Steven Jones and Dr Frank Legge is that WTC 7 was supposed to fall under the dust cloud of the towers and thus with no video footage,would remain a mystery.

Dr Frank Legge "Journal of 911 Studies" has done an extensive study of the Pentagon attack,and he does not discount the possibility of it being a plane when many blame this on a missile attack.Flight 93 it seems, was shot out of the sky.

Really in depth studies only began a few yrs ago and that is why the evidence is so slow in surfacing.

No, seriously.

>>WTC 7 was supposed to come down in the dust and rubble of the towers.<<

Ok. So remind me, who set the explosives in the first place? Silverstein?

>>Something went wrong and it's demo was delayed for 6 hrs.Perhaps another plane was destined to hit it.Was is flight 93 or some other flight that never got off the ground?<<

Right. So it was in fact co-ordinated with the planes flying into the twin towers, is that what you are saying?

>>WTC 7 was supposed to fall under the dust cloud of the towers and thus with no video footage,would remain a mystery.<<

That means, if I understand you correctly, that Silverstein had prior knowledge of the attack.

>>Flight 93 it seems, was shot out of the sky<<

So, all those stories about the bravery of the passengers in resisting the terrorists and forcing them to change course, were - how shall we say... inaccurate?

Let me see if I can summarize your thoughts here.

Larry Silverstein hired suicide pilots to fly planes into New York buildings, so that he could surreptitiously blow up one of his own buildings, in order to collect the insurance money. Some aspects of the plan didn't go according to the script, so he had to make a decision to explode the devices, which he had set some time previously without anyone noticing, anyway.

That is your theory? For today, at least.

And your only evidence, for all of this, is someone waving his hands about on TV.

Arjay, I hope one day soon you will realize not only how ridiculous your "theories" are, but how unbelievably hurtful they must be to the survivors, and their relatives. Not to mention how they insult the intelligence of the rest of the world.

I did not say that Silverstein hired anyone.You are mis-representing what I've said.Silverstein like many others knew since they made a fortune on the stock market having prior knowledge.

You have not come near disproving any of my other points either,so my assumption is that you have another agenda which bests serves your interests.

If Pericles doesn't understand Arjay's arguments by now, it's because he doesn't want to.

Articles which explain how explosives could have been placed in the World Trade Center building by whistleblower Kevin Ryan can be found at:

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html

*Larry Silverstein hired suicide pilots to fly planes into New York buildings*

Good grief, no way Pericles! For Arjay and Daggett to suck it all
up, it needs at least the CIA and possibly Mossad in there
somewhere, to make it credible for them.

Now Yabby you too are being deceptive.Those are the words of pericle's not mine.As I told the AFP officer outside the ABC studios on 11/9/09 at our protest of censorship by the ABC,the truth will eventually come out.He was there to protect me and certain right wing forces might not like what we were doing.Who do you think Yabby those right wing forces could be?

Why would we need protection if what Architects and Engineers was saying was obivious nonsense? Surely you just ignore nonsense like I do and don't give it oxygen.Why is the US media and the media here trying to debunk the truth movement if they espouse nonsense? A lie will fall on it's own sword but truth rises to the surface like cream.

Those who perpetrated this will face justice.Too many people now know.At least 33% of Americans do not believe the official Govt story.
War will not save them.

I've got one for you... *takes a few big tokes* ...What if.. *has a few caughs* ...Nah, I got nuthin', man.

*He was there to protect me and certain right wing forces might not like what we were doing.Who do you think Yabby those right wing forces could be?*

Oh Arjay, I know for sure, inside information. Its the CIA and
Mossad! They are out to get you, so please check under the bed
tonight, they are everywhere man. You better believe it.

Ok, I accept that I misunderstood you Arjay.

>>I did not say that Silverstein hired anyone.You are mis-representing what I've said.<<

So tell me again, what Silverstein had to do with the destruction of WTC7 if i) he didn't set the explosives, ii) he didn't organize the planes?

Or are you simply surmising that whoever did organize it, passed on the information to him so that he could make a buck out of it?

But was the insurance that much more than he was earning from the building? The rent isn't cheap around there - have you any idea how much you'd be getting from all those high-class tenants?

Doesn't seem anywhere near a motive to me. Go to all that trouble, and kill all those people, when even Arjay can see through the scheme?

Why would anyone bother?

Pericles.Silverstein like many others had inside knowledge.If you know of an impending crime and profit by it by non disclosure, then you are guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal act.

The GFC is in the second stage of decay with Greece folding.They have sacrificed the real economy for financial aggragates and so unemployment and small business will continue to falter.The IMF is continuing to counterfeit more money to delay the inevitable.History does repeat itself.

Not exactly, Arjay.

>>Pericles.Silverstein like many others had inside knowledge.<<

Of what?

You need to be able to show it was an inside job before that theory will fly. And neither you nor anyone else has come close to doing that. All you have is innuendo and smear. No motive. No means. No opportunity.

>>If you know of an impending crime and profit by it by non disclosure, then you are guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal act.<<

So why would he take such a stupid risk of landing himself in jail in disgrace for the rest of his life?

It's not as if he was short of a quid.

Doesn't add up.

Doesn't come anywhere close to adding up.

$ 5 billion is a lot of incentive for things not to add up in our minds.Power hungry people get off on the thrill of the chase.It is an addiction just like the movie star seeking more fame.Just like Hitler wanting to control Europe and perhaps the world.

We have all the ingredents for another global conflict.If more countries like Greece falter,Govts will elect for war as a solution to domestic woes.It has happened time and time again throughout history.I don't see any special differences in this so called modern illuminated society.In fact we are less wise that the generations of the last two world wars.

Pericles wrote, "All you have is innuendo and smear. No motive. No means. No opportunity."

A perusal of two other debates with which Pericles has unfortunately graced his presence will show that no matter how many times you provide evidence that figures within the Bush administration had the motive, the means and the opportunity to launch 9/11, he will simply repeat the above statement as if you had never had. Those debates are:

"Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=41
"JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=44

Another way Pericles is fond of implicitly stating this same lie is:

"Perhaps if you were able to provide even the slightest hint of credibility in your storytelling, I might think yes, daggett has opened my eyes, this is worth taking another look at." ("Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=34 #168886 23 April 2010 10:50:57 AM)

In fact since Arjay and I first raised these questions on OLO we have indeed provided over and over and over "the slightest hint of credibility in [our] storytelling" and a good deal more besides.

The articles cited above by 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan show in great detail the means and the opportunity that conspirators within the US state and closely allied corporations would have had to plant explosives in the World Trade Center towers, yet Pericles has ignored those articles and still continues to repeat the same lies cited above.

This is further confirmation that Pericles is not here to discover the truth (the essence of which he no doubt understood a long time ago) but to prevent others from learning the truth.

---

A most instructive fact in this whole discussion is the complete lack of credible evidence by those who uphold the Official 9/11 conspiracy. Please note how when I challenged 9/11 'debunkers' to provide that evidence, I was faced with either deafening silence or Pericles' brazen refusal to provide any evidence:

"Not this time, daggett"

... as if he ever had provided any evidence -- See "Why do we fight?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=4

As for the issue raised by Arjay, "Does Israel Control the USA?" I wouldn't deny that knowing the answer to this question one way or the other is very important, but, at this point in time it is not absolutely critical to knowing that 9/11 was perpetrated by elements within the Bush administration, so I have decided, for now, not to devote as much of my attention to this as I eventually should.

My apologies that I omitted the word 'theory' at the end of the first sentence of the third last paragraph in my second most recent post. The sentence should have been:


"A most instructive fact in this whole discussion is that there is a complete of credible evidence by those who uphold the Official 9/11 conspiracy theory."

---

An invasion of Iran, by the US, NATO and Israel, perhaps triggered by a false flag terrorist attack blamed on Iran, could well extend to involve Russia and China.

It could be the start of Word War 3.

The cost, in lives, disabling injuries, material destruction and money would be horrific.

Some useful resources about this question and whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons program (the other likely pretext for war) is "An Act Of War" at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25302.htm http://candobetter.org/node/1977, which is Republican Congressman Ron Paul's speech against sanctions against Iran.

CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern's YouTube speech "Beneath the hype: Is Iran close to nukes?" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DxyA4LT7MA also sheds a lot of light on what is going on. It reveals how decent honest Intelligence professionals, who have refused to tell the Bush Administration the lies it needed to hear about Iran's supposed nuclear program, prevented an invasion in 2007.

If, instead they had told them lies, such as those that others fed to the Bush Blair and Howard in 2002 and 2003 about supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, then there would have been an invasion.

The other factor preventing war is the world-wide 9/11 Truth Movement whom the would-be conspirators know will be capable of revealing, to many, the truth of the further false flag terrorist outrages they are, no doubt, planning.

Unfortunately, it was not them, rather a handful of quick thinking passengers aboard Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009, who prevented 290 passengers and crew aboard that flight from being blown up in mid air.

Who knows what would have happened if that had succeeded and our headlines were full of the horror of that attack, had it succeeded?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

And how would all the 9/11 truth deniers, such as those unfortunately present here, have responded when governments and newsmedia would have inevitably demanded the further removal of our human rights to supposedly 'safeguard' us against further human rights?

And how difficult would it have been to prevent the successful murder of the passengers and crew aboard Flight 253 from being used as a pretext for an all-out war in Yemen, Somalia or Iran?

Those who use these forums to uphold the official lie of 9/11 on these forums are, in fact, making further terrorist outrages more and not less likely.

And they are making more likely the outbreak of further, more devastating wars, which would cost at least hundreds of thousands of lives and more likely tens or hundreds of millions of lives.

Daggett,I've known for some time that Pericles has a hidden agenda.He is intelligent enough to decipher fact from fiction and yet chooses the lie above truth.

So many people now know it is too late for denial.A lot of people suspect something but the truth is just too horrifying for many to want to even entertain such a betrayal of our humanity.

I think there were elements within the corporate sphere,US Govt and Israel who planned 911.Use the analysis of who benefits then the dots can be joined.It is about the power of selling,oil,arms,drugs and counterfeiting our currencies via fractional reserve scams & derivatives/hedgefunds/credit default swaps etc.

This is your idea of a motive, Arjay?

>>$ 5 billion is a lot of incentive for things not to add up in our minds.Power hungry people get off on the thrill of the chase.It is an addiction just like the movie star seeking more fame.Just like Hitler wanting to control Europe and perhaps the world.<<

First up, where's do you get your figure of "$5 billion"?

The rest is pure generalization.

It may be true that some "people get off on the thrill of the chase", or that some have "an addiction just like the movie star seeking more fame". It does not follow that everyone conforms to your stereotype.

To suggest that Larry Silverstein was part of a conspiracy to kill thousands of his fellow-citizens, without motive, means or opportunity, is fairly despicable, if you think about it.

Unfortunately there appears to be a group of society's fringe-dwellers that gets off on this sort of stuff. All rather sad, really.

The moment you have any evidence that doesn't rely on highly-strung "whistleblowers" with over-active imaginations, I'll be eager to listen.

And that obviously excludes all of daggett's can copy'n'paste efforts.

This is a great example of what I am trying to get across to you, daggett.

>>The articles cited above by 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan show in great detail the means and the opportunity that conspirators within the US state and closely allied corporations would have had to plant explosives in the World Trade Center towers, yet Pericles has ignored those articles and still continues to repeat the same lies cited above.<<

I did you the courtesy of wading through the whole of Kevin Ryan's output on the topic.

All of it.

And there isn't a single assertion in there that does not rely upon a predisposition to conspiracy.

All the "connections" that were supposedly proof of a conspiracy, were entirely circumstantial. Not a shred of evidence in the whole farrago.

Which is of course why you simply refer to it in the abstract - as "articles... by 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan".

Because there isn't a single sentence that you can use as evidence on its own. You need to be able to suspend disbelief, and imagine that "if there were a conspiracy, this might be how it could be linked together".

All in all it is a fine piece of imaginative writing.

Unfortunately, it turns out to be far too complicated for a movie script, which is its only legitimate home.

Pericles' most recent 'reply' is not the first time he has used this sleight of hand.

The sleight of hand is to point out that Kevin Ryan's article is not conclusive proof that explosives were planted by the people discussed.

However, Pericles' excuse for refusing to discuss the demolition hypothesis is his insistence that it would have been logistically impossible for those explosives to have been planted.

Kevin Ryan's articles demonstrate conclusively that it was possible (if it had not already been shown). So, I fail to understand his reasons for not discussing any of the abundant evidence, for example, available on http://ae911truth.org that the WTC Towers were blown up.

---

Since Pericles has "waded" through all of Kevin Ryan's articles at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html then perhaps he would care to provide a specific example of where Ryan's logic is flawed.

There's no "sleight of hand", daggett.

Here is a fact that we agree on, in your own words.

>>Kevin Ryan's article is not conclusive proof that explosives were planted by the people discussed<<

"Sleight of hand" is the term you use when you try to turn vague, circumstantial evidence into proof of a conspiracy.

>>Kevin Ryan's articles demonstrate conclusively that it was possible (if it had not already been shown)<<

If this were actually the case, you would be able to point to some actual evidence. Instead of which, you resort, once again, to the sort of mysterious arm-waving that has become your trademark.

>>So, I fail to understand his reasons for not discussing any of the abundant evidence, for example, available on http://ae911truth.org that the WTC Towers were blown up.<<

You don't really fail, daggett. You actually understand perfectly.

The reason, as you know, is that there is no evidence - let alone "abundant evidence" - of a conspiracy. Just a jumble of supposition, elbow-nudges and innuendo. If there were any evidence, you'd be able to point directly to it. As it is, there is a very good reason why it is accepted only by conspiracy-dweebs, with little else in their lives to occupy them.

You can of course show this up as an incorrect conclusion, at any time you like, by actually citing something that points directly to a conspiracy.

>> perhaps he would care to provide a specific example of where Ryan's logic is flawed.<<

Yeah, yeah. Same old, same old.

The thing is, daggett, since it is your conspiracy, it is appropriate for you to provide me with a specific example of un-flawed logic.

But we both know that every one of his "theories" depends upon the acceptance of another of his "theories", ultimately requiring a belief that there was a conspiracy in the first place.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, this conspiracy business.

Which is why you are forced to pretend to yourself that I am a paid lackey of the New World Order, instead of just someone who asks the simple, straightforward and obvious questions.

Note how Pericles has, once again, skilfully avoided discussing any evidence whatsoever from Kevin Ryan's articles. And this is on top of his complete avoidance of discussion of any of the specific evidence contained in http://ae911truth.org .

As I noted in my recent post, after months of evasion, he also recently refused point blank to provide any evidence in defence of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory when I asked him on the forum "Why do we fight?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=4

And, of course, he has failed to respond to my point about people like him, by helping to conceal the truth about false flag terrorism, make more likely more terrorist outrages and more wars.

I think, perhaps, Pericles may be aiming to achieve the all-time record in lowest substantive-content-to-volume ratio in online forum discussion.

---

Yes Arjay, it's also been obvious to me, for years, that Pericles has his own hidden agenda.

However, others are more likely be fooled by him, unless people like ourselves, who understand the topic, make the effort to show him up.

You will certainly have to lift your game, daggett, if this is your objective.

>>However, others are more likely be fooled by him, unless people like ourselves, who understand the topic, make the effort to show him up<<

I can suggest - in fact I have suggested, on a number of occasions - that the best way to "show me up" is actually to present some evidence. Instead, you continually talk yourself round in circles, ending up precisely where you started from.

"There is a conspiracy" says daggett "because I say there is a conspiracy. And the proof is that you can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy, so therefore there must be a conspiracy, and yah boo sucks to you."

The fact that you can still come out with repetitive dross like this proves that your heart isn't in it any longer.

>>Note how Pericles has, once again, skilfully avoided discussing any evidence whatsoever from Kevin Ryan's articles...<<

It's like those "missing trillions", daggett. The minute - nay, the very second, that you present some evidence other than referring to someone else's random outpourings, you will get a measured and thoughtful response.

In the meantime, the equation is: No evidence presented = No discussion possible.

>>And, of course, he has failed to respond to my point about people like him, by helping to conceal the truth about false flag terrorism, make more likely more terrorist outrages and more wars.<<

You make a point that is entirely your opinion, daggett, to which you are fully entitled.

It didn't occur to me that you might now want me to comment on each of your individual opinions, as well as all the other drivel. There simply isn't the space here to do so.

It's all good material though for the chapter entitled "Of course, he failed to respond..."

Arjay: << Daggett,I've known for some time that Pericles has a hidden agenda. >>

Pericles, your number's up, your cover's blown and our mutual handler has issued a 'burn notice'. I'm afraid you're on your own now.

It's been fun, but I can no longer maintain our former covert association. Ciao.

At least in Christopher's case it can be fairly said that he has no hidden agenda.

The only agenda that Christopher has ever promoted comes from what he has been told to think by the leaders of his peer group. (See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82)

Anyone hoping to find evidence of Christopher's own comprehension of these issues will search in vain through these forums.

(See also "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=37
"JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=44)

OMG - my cover's blown too!

Where's my tinfoil hat?

I hate to have to break the news CJ, but they took it away.

>>OMG - my cover's blown too! Where's my tinfoil hat?<<

None of their gamma-rays were getting through, so they crept into your house last week and surgically removed the hat, as well as that additional layer of foil you had fitted underneath your scalp.

That's why you can't remember the anal probe.

To begin this string Arjay wrote: "AIPAC ( America Israel Public Affairs Committee) is said to be the most powerful lobby group in the USA. There are only 5 million people of Jewish origin living in pop of 308 million.How do they wield so much influence?"

I have been reading the posts in this discussion with dismay.

It started out with crap. Industry groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers along with lobbyists representing tobacco, drug, insurance etc. are more powerful than AIPAC as are union organizations such as the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters. Christian organisations which have helped to break down the separation of church and state by successfully promoting government support of religion in the faith-based initiatives are also more powerful.

Arjay has fed on the myth of the all-powerful Jew as outlined in the "Protocols of Zion", that hardy perennial forged by the czarist secret police.

"There are only 5 million people of Jewish origin living in pop of 308 million. How do they wield so much influence?"

More crap! This feeds into the myth. AIPAC Is not the most powerful lobby. the 5 million Jews do not wield so much influence. In fact many in the US Jewish community do not back AIPAC. Some Jews such as Noam Chomsky oppose both Israeli and US foreign policy. Some US Orthodox Jews such as the Satmar Hassidim oppose the state of Israel since they believe it should be only up to God whether Jews return to Israel. Some US Jews support J Street which is a lobby for peace in Israel and opposed to AIPAC. Some US Jews such as myself support the separation of religion and state. They oppose any government which discriminates among its citizens on the basis of religion or ethnicity. They are against government promoted segregation on those grounds. Therefore they oppose government subsidies to religious school whether in Australia or Israel.

This string started with the myth of the all-powerful Jew. Then the fruitcakes went into their conspiracy theories.

Oh well, nuts can add flavour to a salad or other dish.

david f you started out with abuse and ended with it.You have in no way refuted the facts in this discussion.It is all ad hominen waffle.
So go to http://ae911truth.org/ and disprove the scientific facts there.

Perhaps, if Christopher were to rise to the challenge of showing the rest of us where he ever demonstrated any comprehension of the 9/11 controversy, it may be just possible to restore his cover before too many others notice.

Pericles most recent 'serious' 'contribution' (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3613&page=13 #8720210 May 2010 2:18:17 PM), before he and Christopher attempted to resurrect the tired and worn 'tinfoil hat' supposed parody, again avoids discussing the evidence provided.

I would suggest that others check for themselves the articles by Kevin Ryan I cited at:

http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html http://911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html

... rather than accepting Pericles' word for it that they contain no evidence.

As for Pericles' claim that I have provided no evidence in any of these discussions, again I suggest people check for themselves my contributions, perhaps beginning with "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=1
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=2
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=3
etc.

Even if it were to be proven true that I provided no evidence in these discussions, I think it would be more helpful to others if Pericles were to demonstrate that by specifically referring to what I had presented as evidence.

The fact that he never does should make others suspicious of his pronouncements.

It is certainly true that I have often claimed that Pericles has produced no evidence whatsoever in support of his case.

Pericles doesn't even attempt to deny that.

Pericles wrote, "And the proof is that you can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy, so therefore there must be a conspiracy, ..."

Isn't that precisely Pericles' own logic in support of the US Government claims, of an existence a world-wide conspiracy of Islamist extremists in terrorist cells directed from Afghanistan, and that is why the war there must continue, lest these extremists re-establish their bases and training camps and begin launching further 9/11's, 7/7's, Bali bombings, etc.?

I've always loved the crystalline logic of your requests of me, daggett.

>>Even if it were to be proven true that I provided no evidence in these discussions, I think it would be more helpful to others if Pericles were to demonstrate that by specifically referring to what I had presented as evidence.<<

You would like me to specifically refer to what you present as evidence, even if it were to be proven true that you provided no evidence.

I did get that right, didn't I?

It is in fact your standard ploy. You refer to some desperate-for-attention website, Kevin Ryan's turgid four-parter being just one of many, that contains absolutely no factual evidence whatsoever, and then ask me to point out why the evidence is faulty.

Do you not see the fatuity of this?

It's highly reminiscent of the early days of the Gulf War - the first one - when the fruit-loops of world suddenly latched onto Nostradamus. Forests were destroyed in order to produce the paper onto which multiple interpretations of his spaced-out meanderings were touted. None yielded anything more significant than an exposure of the sad mind that had invested the time and energy to deliver their "warning to mankind".

This 9/11 stuff is compellingly similar.

>>It is certainly true that I have often claimed that Pericles has produced no evidence whatsoever in support of his case.<<

That's because, as I have pointed out to you before, I don't have a "case" to prove. All I have ever done is to point out the massive, gaping holes in your own arguments. And occasionally to add that I think that you are insulting the dead, their relatives, and the survivors, by insisting that it was their own government that was responsible for the wanton, premeditated and brutal murder.

That's what really annoys you, isn't it.

As I have also said on occasions too many to mention, I believe everyone should examine your "evidence" in detail - even though simply wading through it will destroy a fair few otherwise useful brain cells.

Evidently, Pericles considers it is acceptable for powerful nations to invade smaller nations without producing evidence in support of their stated justifications.

If Pericles intends to go on simply repeating over and over and over again his assertions that none of my posts, nor http://ae911truth.org nor Kevin Ryan's articles, nor any other articles I have cited contain evidence that warrants responses from him, then I think that should check those resources for themselves.

I believe that when they do, they will know that Pericles' word is not to be trusted.

"Evidently", daggett

>>Evidently, Pericles considers it is acceptable for powerful nations to invade smaller nations without producing evidence in support of their stated justifications.<<

Pure invention.

On the other hand...

"Evidently, daggett considers it is acceptable for individuals with nothing better to do with their time, to insinuate without evidence that the US government would sanction the mass murder of its own citizenry for no discernible reason, thus visiting further pain and anguish on the relatives of the deceased, and the survivors of the terrorist attack."

...this is indisputable.

Pericles wrote, "Pure invention".

So, either Pericles opposes the invasion of Afghanistan.

Or he is saying that the evidence in support of the invasion of Afghanistan exists, but he is not prepared to tell the rest of us what it is. (See "Why do we fight?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=4)

---

I see Pericles wants to drag this 'debate' even further down to the level of two little girls arguing in a school yard:

1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
etc,. etc., etc.

All this to avoid having to discuss the evidence.

I think people have worked out by now that you maintain that I have not presented any evidence in support of the case I am defending, Pericles.

Now, how about stepping back and letting them work out for themselves who, out of you and me is telling the truth, instead of repeating yourself, yet again?

I'm all for that, daggett.

>>Now, how about stepping back and letting them work out for themselves who, out of you and me is telling the truth, instead of repeating yourself, yet again?<<

I have readily agreed to this, many times, even as recently as... hey, today!

"As I have also said on occasions too many to mention, I believe everyone should examine your "evidence" in detail - even though simply wading through it will destroy a fair few otherwise useful brain cells"

How about that! Isn't that amazing - I must be reading your thoughts.

But seriously, you should take time out to brush up on Logic 101.

>>either Pericles opposes the invasion of Afghanistan. Or he is saying that the evidence in support of the invasion of Afghanistan exists, but he is not prepared to tell the rest of us what it is<<

That is an "either/or" that exists only in your head.

Logically, it is perfectly possible to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan for a million different reasons. Any "evidence in support" would clearly not be in that list, now would it.

Think about it.

And while I'm here, I'd just like to say that I thought this was very cute:

>> two little girls arguing in a school yard:

1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
etc,. etc., etc.<<

Just one question... which one is you?

Daggett you are wasting your time.Time and time again I've invited Pericles to disprove the basic science of freefall and the inability of these structures to even put up minimal resistance to gravity but he is lost for words and side steps the issue.

So the whole exercise is pointless.

*Now, how about stepping back and letting them work out for themselves who, out of you and me is telling the truth, instead of repeating yourself, yet again?*

Oh we have figured that one out long ago Daggett and frankly
you don't look too good.

I am just amazed that Pericles has the patience with you and
Arjay. Few would.

Dear Arjay,

One problem with your 'evidence' is that there were four planes. One of them hit the Pentagon. One of them crashed in Pennsylvania when a number of passengers stormed the hijackers. Your fantasy doesn't explain them.

Pericles has attempted to deal with your sick, paranoid fantasies by logic. CJ Morgan has attempted to do so by humour. Both have failed. One cannot deal with sick, paranoid fantasies by either logic or humour.

david f,

I don't believe the official account of 9/11 has explained how the most heavily defended building in the world was able to be hit by Flight 77 or, indeed, anything.

In regard to Flight 93 the evidence points to it having been shot down with a Sidewinder missile, whether or not the passengers first succeeded in overpowering the hijackers.

This also contradicts the official accounts.

---

Anyway, as I have been saying to Pericles, I don't believe that claiming that our arguments have been "dealt with" by logic or by 'humour' is a substitute for actually arguing your case.

As far as I can tell, our arguments have not been dealt with, but if, as you say, they have, then why not allow others to form their own judgement? (And, of course, by 'others', I don't mean people like Yabby, who, long ago, showed his mind to be completely closed on this issue.)

---

Pericles wrote, "Logically, it is perfectly possible to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan for a million different reasons. ..."

So, are you saying that you oppose the invasion of Afghanistan whilst still accepting the Official Conspiracy theory that 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bombings, etc. were launched from Afghanistan?

daggett: << As far as I can tell, our arguments have not been dealt with, but if, as you say, they have, then why not allow others to form their own judgement? (And, of course, by 'others', I don't mean people like Yabby, who, long ago, showed his mind to be completely closed on this issue.) >>

OK all you "others" who remain susceptible to Arjay and daggett's shared madness, it's time to speak up. daggett doesn't want to hear from us "others" who think that daggett and Arjay's conspiracy fantasies are a total crock.

No logic or humour allowed.

Arjay, you started this string with the question, "Does Israel Control the USA?" and painted a picture of 5,000,000 Jews supporting AIPAC and together with Israel controlling the US.

You are not alone in this insanity. A number of us have been exterminated as a result of many sharing in the fantasy of the all-powerful Jew. The truth is we are not all-powerful, but those with such paranoid fantasies may feel compelled to destroy us. Maybe you will get enough people to share your fantasy, and this time our extermination will be complete.

You and those like you will keep on. Hopefully most people will have enough sense not to buy your sickness, but there is a chance that they will.

I don't think there is a cure for your kind of paranoia, and it is infectious.

I am deeply afraid of you.

You are becoming increasingly delusional, daggett.

Which, given the point from which you started, is a substantial achievement.

>>I don't believe the official account of 9/11 has explained how the most heavily defended building in the world was able to be hit by Flight 77 or, indeed, anything.<<

Delusion no.1 is, of course, that the Pentagon is "heavily defended", let alone "the most heavily defended building in the world". It is on American soil, and has no out-of-the-ordinary defences whatsoever. It might be difficult for a civilian to get in there without a pass, but otherwise it is just another office building.

Which does guided tours.

http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/security.html

Delusion no.2, that Flight 77 did not hit the building, requires you to ignore the existence of physical evidence - trivial stuff, like the bodies of the passengers, the black boxes recovered, eyewitness testimony, that sort of thing.

>>In regard to Flight 93 the evidence points to it having been shot down with a Sidewinder missile, whether or not the passengers first succeeded in overpowering the hijackers.<<

There is no evidence that supports this theory. None. Just another red herring dragged across the trail.

>>So, are you saying that you oppose the invasion of Afghanistan whilst still accepting the Official Conspiracy theory that 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bombings, etc. were launched from Afghanistan?<<

Once again (how many times does this need to be said, I wonder) there are a million reasons why one might oppose the invasion of Afghanistan.

At the same time, there are absolutely no reasons to subscribe to your wild-eyed, paranoid conspiracy theories.

There are on the other hand many reasons why you should not continue to support a movement that can only bring prolonged misery to the survivors, the victims' relatives, and the many brave souls who attended the scene.

By encouraging them to believe that their government orchestrated the cold-blooded murder of innocent Americans, you are helping to blight the rest of their lives.

I guess it's a good job you have no conscience.

CJ Morgan, you seem to have misunderstood my point.

Of course I don't mind people like yourself, Yabby, Pericles, david f, et al, arguing their case.

What I was saying, is that merely restating that they reject the case of the 9/11 Truth movement adds nothing to anyone's understanding of the issue.

In your own case, as I have said before, it would help move the argument forward if, for once, after more than a year and a half, you could show the rest of us where you even once demonstrated any comprehension of the case of the 9/11 Truth movement.

If you haven't done so before, you are still welcome to do so here.

I will have to attend to Pericles' sophistry in regard to Flight 77 and to cite some of the large body of evidence which blows to pieces the official account of what happened to Flight 93 on another occasion.

In the meantime ...

---

I note that Pericles has avoided answering my straightforward question of whether or not he supports the invasion of Afghanistan and why.

----

And he has again damned daggett as having no conscience for "continu[ing] to support a movement that can only bring prolonged misery to the survivors, the victims' relatives, and the many brave souls who attended the scene. ... blah, blah, rave, rant, etc."

In fact, I already answered almost precisely this same hysterical venom on the forum "JFK.E Howard Hunt Ex CIA, Accuses LBJ" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=44 :

"Somehow this is disrespectful of the heroes, both living and dead and the victims, whilst seizing upon their tragedy to launch wars to seize oil and gas and to profiteer at both the expense of US taxpayers and the conquered peoples and killing well over a million in the process, is not.

"As for Pericles' professed concern for the victims of 9/11, note how he attempted to deny the well understood facts of catastrophic health effects that the toxic WTC dust had upon the health of the first responders. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=24 5 March 2010 12:21:34 PM)"

Pericles has yet to respond.

Sophistry, daggett? That's a crack-up.

>>I will have to attend to Pericles' sophistry in regard to Flight 77<<

I merely pointed out that your theory, and I quote, "requires you to ignore the existence of physical evidence - trivial stuff, like the bodies of the passengers, the black boxes recovered, eyewitness testimony, that sort of thing."

Sophistry n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

No subtlety there.

Not at all tricky, either, it's perfectly straightforward. And a little more than "superficially" plausible, I would suggest.

To add the cherry on the top, there is not a single fallacious aspect to the "method of reasoning" here. Just a simple statement, that to believe in a, you have to ignore b, c and d.

Which all contradict you.

I look forward to the fact that you will "attend" to it "on another occasion".

In fact, how about now?

>>I note that Pericles has avoided answering my straightforward question of whether or not he supports the invasion of Afghanistan and why.<<

My views on the invasion of Afghanistan have bugger-all relevance to the dismemberment of your ridiculous conspiracy inventions, which is why I haven't offered them.

One thing at a time, eh?

>>Pericles has yet to respond.<<

Nope.

You just haven't been listening, that's all.

As usual.

Daggett.The strategy is to keep us tied up with their mis-information.Very few people actually read OLO.The really big impact is on the Ron Paul site.I know from personal experience.

David f sees me,Arjay as being really dangerous.Why is truth now a danger? None of them can mount an argument to contravene any of the realities we present.It is all ad hominem and their BS .

Professor Niels Harrit is coming to Sydney soon ,to present his peer reviewed paper by 9 international scientists, on nano thermite. This highly sophistocated explosive was found in all three buildings of the 911 World Trade Centre.Muslims living in caves in Afghanistan had not the technical or scientific nous to pull this off.The venue is Mitchell Theatre Syd. Mechanical School of Arts, 280 Pitt St Sydney at 6:30 pm.

Daggett,we have to move on,these clowns are wasting our time.

Pericles wrote, "My views on the invasion of Afghanistan have bugger-all relevance, ..."

In fact, I would have to agree.

But why only your views on the invasion of Afghanistan?

Arjay & Daggett, I will tell you why I see you as a danger.

The title of this string is "Does Israel Control the USA?" If you really believe the answer to that question is 'yes' you are credulous cranks believing in the myth of the all-powerful Jew. If enough people see things that way we will be attacked and will suffer. If you believe the answer to that question is 'no' then you are vile persons who exploit Jew hatred for their own purposes by asking the question and giving credibility by asking. That is what bothers me - the original title of this thread and the original statement. You are either cranks or scum. It is not your conspiracy theories that bother me. It is the opening of this thread and the original assumption of the 5,000,000 Jews, AIPAC & Israel controlling the US.

In recent history whenever an event gets much publication or causes great consequences, there are conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork who see hidden forces. That doesn't particularly bother me. I can live with cranks. Many people are cranks in some way or other. I would not have responded to this thread if that was all it was. However, you started out putting Jews as though we were all united and supported whatever Israel wants and Israel is all powerful. This is pretty standard antisemitism and frightens me wherever it appears. So I repeat. You are either credulous cranks or scum.

Those two sets are not mutually exclusive david f...

david f,

Why are those, who hold that an international conspiracy of Islamist extremists was responsible for 9/11, 7/7, the Bali bombings the Madrid train bombings, etc., any less "conspiracy theorists" than those who reject that conspiracy theory?

In regard to the question, "Does Israel control the USA?" I don't see why it should not be asked.

Even credible Jewish commentators talk of the power of the Jewish lobby over the US. Also, it's obvious that US policy is very biassed towards Israel and blind to its mis-treatment of Palestinians.

So, why is one necessarily anti-Semitic to have posed that question?

As I already wrote, my own mind is open on the issue.

Not understanding the issue better, I think it is more likely that whilst Israel and the Jewish lobby wield unduly great influence over the US, but they don't control the US outright.

But, whoever it is that controls the US, whether Anglos, Europeans, more native Americans, Jews, other racial/cultural groups or some combination, are a greedy and reckless minority, who pose the greatest threat to humankind in all history (with the arguable exception of the Generals who tried to get President Kennedy on several occasions to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the USSR).

---

If you are so sure that powerful figures within the US administration did not orchestrate 9/11, then what are your answers to the questions from the 9/11 Truth Statement at http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=2009_truth_statement including:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

6. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?

9. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

?

Dear Daggett,

I know of nobody who has claimed that all Muslims are united and worked with Al Qaeda to orchestrate 9/11.

However, the initial statement of this string brought in AIPAC, 5 million US Jews and Israel as controlling the US.

Do you believe the latter?

Am I the only American Jew who neither supports Israel nor AIPAC?

You are credulous cranks and/or scum.

Yes, asking that sort of question is promoting a vicious stereotype which has resulted in mass murder in the past and may do so in the future.

Davidf. The jewish lobby has enormous power in the USA.They have great influence in the banking system and Wall St.When 80% of Congress signs a letter of allegiance promising not to critise them,then all is not well.

Rather than flinging abuse go to http://www.ae911truth.org/ and veiw the video Blue Print for Truth. I' ve met Richard Gage it's founder and others like Prof Steven Jones.They are not making this up.They have the science to back it up.Prof Neils Harrit did a 2 yr study on nanao thermite and his peer reviewed paper has been ignored.Not analysed ,critised or debunked.

You have not even tried to address any of the facts or scientific findings yourself.Hurling abuse does not present an argument.

david f: << You are credulous cranks and/or scum >>

"Scum" is going a bit far. However obsessed and deluded these clowns are, I think they mean well.

However, david f is quite correct to point out the unintended implications of their conspiratorial fantasies.

david f wrote, "I know of nobody who has claimed that all Muslims are united and worked with Al Qaeda to orchestrate 9/11."

I am well aware that even former President George W Bush has not claimed that.

However, what I dispute, just as much as you dispute that a world-wide Jewish/Zionist conspiracy guides the destiny of humankind, is that a world-wide conspiracy of Islamist fanatics, who are based in Afghanistan, perpetrated 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings, etc.

And I dispute the argument that in order to defeat that alleged conspiracy it is necessary to fight seemingly endless wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, etc, which have already cost well over a million lives and tolerate the removal of guarantees of free speech, democratic freedoms and human rights, such as that which occurred during the APEC summit in September 2007 at a cost of AU$169 million to Australian taxpayers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_Australia_2007#Criticism_and_public_response).

As you must surely appreciate, by not having been able to provide answers to those questions posed by the 9/11 Truth movement in my previous post or, indeed any others before that, the evidence of that conspiracy does not exist.

---

david f asks "Do you believe that [5 million US Jews and Israel control the US]?"

What I do know is that the US and most countries of the world are controlled by small wealthy greedy elites.

Hervé Kempf, environmental editor of Le Monde in "How the Rich are destroying the Earth" (2007, 2008) puts that figure at roughly several hundred thousand. (I can't cite the page or his more precise estimate.)

So, obviously, if we accept that the minority that are in control the destiny of the US is considerably smaller the figure you have given.

Whether or not pro-Israeli Jews comprise the majority of that elite (and it seems unlikely to me that they do) is not the main point for me.

c j morgan.The evidence is all there and none of you have tried to debunk it.That says a lot.The truth movement is enormous.ae911truth now has almost 1200 professionals and 8000 other supporters who want a new investigation.You do not lightly put your name down if you are an Architect or Engineer since this will limit your career opportunities.There are pilots,lawyers,academics,"we are change" run by Luke Rudowski all demanding that the truth be heard.

The ex President of Italy Cossiga wants a new investigation along with Dr Mahathir Mohamid of Malaysia, Armadinajad of Iran,Jessie Ventura ex Gov in USA and many others,do not believe the official story.Cossiga says it was a CIA/MOSSAD operation

When Prof Niels Harrit put out his paper on nano thermite in April 2009 it went on national Danish TV but was banned here.

What are the unintended consequences cj morgan? If they get away with this,then the West is doomed to a facism and totalitarianism to horrible to contemplate.

Arjay, some days you are pure delight.

>>The ex President of Italy Cossiga wants a new investigation<<

Even the most cursory research would show that Cossiga was being sarcastic:

"As I’ve been told, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow the most important chain of newspapers of our country should give the proof, with an exceptional scoop, that the video (which in reality is an audio tape) in which appears Osama, leader of “the great and powerful movement of islamic revenge Al Quaeda” - God bless him! - and in which are formulated threats to our ex president Berlusconi, is nothing more than a fake realized inside Mediaset studios in Milan and sent to arabic television station Al Jazeera.

The trap was organized to create solidarity for Berlusconi, who is having lot of problems related to the tangle between RAI and Mediaset. From circles around Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is testified from the fact that Osama bin Laden in it 'confessed' that Al Qaeda was the author of the attack of the 11 September on the Twin Towers in New York, while all of the democratic circles of America and of Europe, in the front lines being those of the Italian centre-left, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan."

As ever, you have been sucked in. If you look carefully, you will also be able to track down the "La Stampa" article in which he points out the misrepresentation - it's not easy to get to because of La Stampa's internet publishing policy. But it's there.

As for your other conspiracy-boosters - Dr Mahathir, President Ahmadinejad clearly have an axe to grind. And Jessie Ventura, of course, has a TV program that needs viewers.

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

Altogether, a pretty good sample of your supporters.

Their motivation is clear.

But what is yours?

So, has Pericles had second thoughts about his views having "bugger-all relevance"?

I guess it is possible for some to claim that Cossiga's words had to have been sarcastic, but I am not convinced.

And, of course, Pericles never fails to attribute nefarious motives, or some other serious personal flaws to anyone who publicly challenges the official account of 9/11, however he has never seriously attempted to address any of our substantive points.

If Pericles is not willing to state whether or not he supports the invasion of Afghanistan, then I don't know how he expects to be treated seriously.

As I have made clear, when I truly believed that Islamist fanatics, based in Afghanistan, launched 9/11 and were bent on launching many more such attacks, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan as being the only possible way to rid the world of this threat.

However, starting from late 2007, when I began to realise that the evidence in support of the Bush administration's claims about 9/11 did not exist, I started to change my view.

The reason Pericles now refuses to state clearly whether he is for or against the invasion of Afghanistan is that he knows that the evidence supporting the US case for invasion does not exist and wants to avoid having to acknowledge that.

---

david f, if you insist on calling Arjay and myself "credulous cranks and/or scum" could you at least acknowledge that we are "credulous cranks and/or scum" who, unlike you, are prepared to discuss the evidence?

Dear Daggett,

I am sure your conspiracy websites make a plausible case. However, one can lie and make a plausible case if one is a good liar. This string started off with the hateful stereotype of the all-powerful Jew. Should I take that stereotype seriously?

There is or was even a flat earth society. Should I examine their evidence?

We have knowledge of lot of things that go on in the world only by second hand. We make decisions based on plausibility. Of course it is possible that the mainstream media and the governments concerned are cooperating in a giant coverup.

However, it seems far more plausible than you are credulous cranks and/or scum.

I am not obligated to examine the evidence of a crank who carries a sign on a street corner announcing that the world is coming to an end next Thursday.

I put Arjay and you in the same category as that crank.

Your cut 'n' paste approach to life sometimes becomes immensely tedious, daggett.

>>So, has Pericles had second thoughts about his views having "bugger-all relevance"?<<

Let me repeat:

"My views on the invasion of Afghanistan have bugger-all relevance to the dismemberment of your ridiculous conspiracy inventions, which is why I haven't offered them."

A refresher on the English language, daggett. The meaning of a sentence is derived from its whole, not just a part.

If I were to state here that "They said on the news last night that daggett has the IQ of a paving stone", you would be unable to sue me for the libel "daggett has the IQ of a paving stone". I would not even need to claim truth as a defence, since the whole sentence makes it clear it was reported speech.

The relevance is to this discussion only, which, to remind you, is about your insistence on re-writing history as a Die Hard film-script.

Now, where were we.

>>I guess it is possible for some to claim that Cossiga's words had to have been sarcastic, but I am not convinced.<<

Well of course you're not. It's your job to be unconvinced when the person who made the statement in the first place says his words had been manipulated. It's what you do.

I prefer to believe Cossiga.

>>however he has never seriously attempted to address any of our substantive points.<<

As I have said on oh-so-many previous occasions daggett, the millisecond after you make your first substantive point, I'll set about addressing it.

If it actually makes sense, I'll even support it. Alas, that day seems as far away as ever.

>>If Pericles is not willing to state whether or not he supports the invasion of Afghanistan, then I don't know how he expects to be treated seriously<<

That, from someone who in the next sentence admits to having changed his mind on the topic, is classic.

"If daggett keeps changing his mind on whether or not he supports the invasion of Afghanistan, then I don't know how he expects to be treated seriously".

david f,

Nobody forced you, Pericles or anyone else to comment on the 9/11 controversy here or anywhere else.

The fact remains that you have expressed a view and you have cast judgement on those who have different views to yourself, but you have not been prepared to substantiate those views.

I personally don't mind that much if individual "cranks and/or scum" hold responsible Islamist extremists operating from sanctuaries within Afghanistan for the murder of almost 3,000 US residents on 11 September 2001.

But when Governments, principally the US Government, make that claim, without any evidence, and then use that claim as a pretext to launch ruinously costly wars against those they claim are giving sanctuary to those said extremists at the cost of well over a million lives, then it is the right and duty of every free-thinking citizen in any democracy to subject those claims to the closest possible scrutiny.

And that is what Arjay and I have tried to do.

All you have done, and Pericles even more so, is waste everyone's time by, amongst other things, attacking us personally and coming up with excuses not to examine the clear direct evidence such as that of the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Building such as:

"WTC7 in Freefall" at http://911blogger.com/node/17685
"'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie" at http://911blogger.com/node/18771
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18951
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18969

---

david f wrote, "This string started off with the hateful stereotype of the all-powerful Jew."

It did not.

Given the acknowledged influence of the Jewish lobby over US foreign policy and given way that the US has acted particularly favourably towards Israel and against Arab and Muslim nations, particularly since 2001, then I don't see why it is unreasonable to question the precise nature of the influence that that lobby has over the US.

As already I wrote, I think it unlikely the Israel and the Jewish lobby exercise decisive control over the decisions made by the US Government, but I am open to persuasion either way.

I note that Pericles has judged daggett for having CHANGED HIS MIND on the question of 9/11.

Well, he can hardly now expect daggett to pay any heed to his 'arguments' lest HE CHANGES HIS MIND again, can he?

---

I also note the ever observant Pericles has also caught daggett out for having quoted a sentence of his out of context:

"The meaning of a sentence is derived from its whole, not just a part."

However, didn't daggett ask Pericles:

"But why only your views on the invasion of Afghanistan?"

?

One thing's for sure, you're forever entertaining, daggett.

I just had to look it up, and here's what I found.

The act of talking about yourself in the third person, is called illeism.

>>However, didn't daggett ask Pericles: "But why only your views on the invasion of Afghanistan?"<<

Illeism. Remember that word, it will come in handy one day.

Sesame Street's Elmo has the same habit. And Russell Crowe, too, if the stories that he shouts "Go, Russ, Go" at the moment of, um, ecstasy, are true.

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=6608

Incidentally, the strictly accurate answer to your question is yes, you did.

However, you failed to make clear:

Is the emphasis on "only"? "your"? "only your"? "views"? "invasion"? or "Afghanistan"?

Without knowing that, the question is utterly unanswerable.

But since you specialize in posing questions that make no useful contribution to the discussion, it is hardly surprising.

You also provide what I guess we need to call a semi-illeism. Or perhaps a demi-illeism.

>>I note that Pericles has judged daggett for having CHANGED HIS MIND on the question of 9/11.<<

Why does daggett.... er, sorry, why do you see this as a judgement? I didn't take as a judgment your observation on my unwillingness to give you my views on the invasion, after all. Seems just a tad paranoid.

>>Well, he can hardly now expect daggett to pay any heed to his 'arguments' lest HE CHANGES HIS MIND again, can he?<<

Now you see, daggett, right there, the very real dangers of illeism.

No-one can have the faintest clue to whom the various references to "he" in this sentence belong, can they?

And as for this little spray...

>>All you have done, and Pericles even more so, is waste everyone's time by, amongst other things, attacking us personally and coming up with excuses not to examine the clear direct evidence<<

You only think you are being attacked, daggett. It's just the self-delusion that you employ as a justification for getting all cross and bothered when people treat your theories with the profound contempt that they deserve.

I guess it's instructive that Pericles would rather launch into a long treatise on 'illeism' than, for example, discuss the evidence of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 at:

"WTC7 in Freefall" at http://911blogger.com/node/17685
"'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie" at http://911blogger.com/node/18771
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18951
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18969

daggett, you are flogging the proverbial dead horse.

>>guess it's instructive that Pericles would rather launch into a long treatise on 'illeism' than, for example, discuss the evidence of the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7...<<

So I followed your links.

What I found was:

"NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors."

But hang on, where is there any evidence of controlled demolition?

You keep suggesting that a building that falls down at or close to the acceleration of gravity must, by definition have been demolished with explosives.

But you fail to make any links between the two.

So once again you can present no evidence at all, that explosives were involved.

Incidentally, I've mentioned this before: copy 'n' pasting from a conspiracy web site is no substitute for reason and rational discussion of facts. Which you seem to avoid like the plague.