It's quite sad that you don't get it, Arjay. Because your stubborn adherence to the mythology can only serve to stunt your intellectual growth. For which, it is clear, there is abundant room.

>>This is why we need a true and open investigation.<<

Let me spell it out for you.

Because the "dust" cannot reliably be offered in evidence, the presence of explosive materials cannot be offered as part of any alternative theory. In the absence of explosive materials, the placing of such by undercover operatives, of any kind, cannot be offered as an alternative theory. If there is therefore no evidence of undercover operatives, the allocation of blame on (insert your choice here) cannot possibly stand scrutiny.

Do you see now why it would be an utter and complete waste of time and money?

No?

There's your problem, right there.

Since you have gone very silent on some of the other extraordinary claims you have made on this thread - the Bank of England and the Rothschild connection, the theft from the BoE when it was nationalized, the value of gold during a period of hyperinflation etc. etc. - might it not be time you ceased flogging this particular dead horse?

Only asking.

Pericles we've been there before.The evidence to most logical intelligent people is over whelming.Your aim is to waste my time.Good bye.

Grow up, Arjay. It's not all about you.

>>The evidence to most logical intelligent people is over whelming.Your aim is to waste my time.Good bye.<<

If the evidence were indeed, as it were, evident, than we would not need to have these discussions, would we?

It's sad you are going, though.

I was keen to find out where you dug up those ludicrous stories about the Rothschilds, the Bank of England, and the pre-nationalization pillaging thereof.

>>The Bank of England (previously owned by Rothschilds) was nationalised after it had been stripped of its assets.The tax payer left with the debt.<<

So far, my searches have yielded nothing factual on the topics at all.

Was it perhaps just another example of the wit and wisdom of "Prof Niels Harrit from the University of Cophenhagen [sic]"?

Wouldn't surprise me.

But if you've gotta go, you've gotta go.

Goodbye.

Or, as you would say,

Good bye.

Examinator wrote:

"To accuse me of that (spruiking a nefarious Zionist conspiracy) is a deliberate(?) gross misinterpretation of the point."

OK, then please explain what is the point you are trying to make. You've lost me.