(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.