Interesting tidbit about 9/11...

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I can debunk these conspiracy theories in one sentence. Our government can not keep a secret, if it was a conspiracy it would have to have been a massive one and somebody would have talked about it by now.

This is exactly what I say to governmental conspiracy theorists. Clinton couldn't keep something as simple as a BJ a secret; how would it even be remotely possibly for the government to keep something like a 9/11 cover-up a secret with the amount of people that would be involved? Short answer, it's not.

that's a dumbass example.
clinton could keep a secret fine, but lewinsky on the other hand, couldn't wait to smuggly show off clinton's stain to her friends.

how naive do you have to be to think the government has NOTHING that's classified?
are you out of your mind?
i don't know about you, but i feel that it's our duty as a democratic citizen to keep the government in check by speaking out, rather an unquestionably diehard loyalist. that's your job to exercise your right as the people, and not to be trampled over like sheep.
the civil rights movement is a prime example of people exercising their power.

<idiot>classified shmansified...someone would surely leak these things if they existed. The government doesn't keep any secrets from us.</idiot>

 

[Josh]

Originally posted by: torpid
Are we seriously debating the destructive power of fire in this thread? I just realized maybe we are. I'm all for it. I wish to first understand why a random building burning in venezuela would have to collapse in order for it to be possible for some other building to collapse. To my untrained eye it seems like a logical fallacy along the lines of "some guy survived a shot to the head with a bullet. Therefore this other guy who got shot in the head with a bullet couldn't have died from that".

:thumbsup::laugh:

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well I thought Alkemyst had some intelligence until this thread. I have since realized he thinks he has a lot, but in fact does not. Casio I never thought was intelligent, and just thought he was the shit. Then IBS the jury was out on. I thought he was just a college guy that just wanted booty, and had no real goals. Turns out he is just a moron as well.

Eh to each their own.

LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON DisgruntledVirus. How about providing some original thought if you are so smart?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well I thought Alkemyst had some intelligence until this thread. I have since realized he thinks he has a lot, but in fact does not. Casio I never thought was intelligent, and just thought he was the shit. Then IBS the jury was out on. I thought he was just a college guy that just wanted booty, and had no real goals. Turns out he is just a moron as well.

Eh to each their own.

LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON DisgruntledVirus. How about providing some original thought if you are so smart?

You first.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ns1
Guys guys guys, maybe we're going about this the wrong way.

Maybe we should start supporting IBS's theory and then have Casiotech prove IBS' theory wrong.

Because if IBS' theory is right, Casiotech has to be wrong.

or how about sticking to the topic instead of just throwing shit at everyone else.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Ns1
Guys guys guys, maybe we're going about this the wrong way.

Maybe we should start supporting IBS's theory and then have Casiotech prove IBS' theory wrong.

Because if IBS' theory is right, Casiotech has to be wrong.

or how about sticking to the topic instead of just throwing shit at everyone else.

It definitely spun off to an extremely profitable situation for many and a fuxored situation for our soldiers who are being recycled now too much.

I am sticking to the topic. Or maybe you should chastise CT for going off on a 3 page tangent on the moon landing.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Ns1
Guys guys guys, maybe we're going about this the wrong way.

Maybe we should start supporting IBS's theory and then have Casiotech prove IBS' theory wrong.

Because if IBS' theory is right, Casiotech has to be wrong.

or how about sticking to the topic instead of just throwing shit at everyone else.

He tried that. The troll consortium doesn't read anything, they just post more of their insane theories.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well I thought Alkemyst had some intelligence until this thread. I have since realized he thinks he has a lot, but in fact does not. Casio I never thought was intelligent, and just thought he was the shit. Then IBS the jury was out on. I thought he was just a college guy that just wanted booty, and had no real goals. Turns out he is just a moron as well.

Eh to each their own.

LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON DisgruntledVirus. How about providing some original thought if you are so smart?

You first.

Again another mudsling...I started this thread...most here like yourself are simply attacking a poster and not providing any thing to back up yourself. Those that keep 'providing' proof are all using the same links from the same sources.

I was not in an attempt to prove or disprove anything, only to discuss it.

Your fear shows though.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Josh

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


He is legally obligated to rebuild the towers. You'd be fighting tooth and nail at this point too.

I'll say it again:

Silverstein is legally on the hook for $120 million per year + interest on the bonds AND he must rebuild the WTC.

He has every incentive in the world to try and make this work because, if he doesn't, he loses everything.

If he walked out on the lease he would not be on the hook to rebuild dude. He could give the port authority the insurnace settlement and be done with the whole thing and let htem sort it out.

"walked out on the lease" - have you ever RENTED a place before? Please try and walk out of a lease. Please. I'll be in court laughing at you.

Look at the logical fallacies in this line of thinking:

1. If Silverstein could have walked out of the contract at any point, why is he still trying to rebuild the WTC, despite needing to give up more power and beg for more money?
2. If he could walk out, why didn't he insure the WTC for MORE than his investment?
3. If he really was involved in 9/11, he had to have realized that he had nearly 100 billion in revenue coming over the next 80 years to his company... and he was willing to throw that away for a mere 3.5% up front? The same amount that he INVESTED in the first place?

 

[Josh]

damn quotes

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ns1

It definitely spun off to an extremely profitable situation for many and a fuxored situation for our soldiers who are being recycled now too much.

I am sticking to the topic. Or maybe you should chastise CT for going off on a 3 page tangent on the moon landing.

It related to my point. All your points are personal. You really try too hard.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well I thought Alkemyst had some intelligence until this thread. I have since realized he thinks he has a lot, but in fact does not. Casio I never thought was intelligent, and just thought he was the shit. Then IBS the jury was out on. I thought he was just a college guy that just wanted booty, and had no real goals. Turns out he is just a moron as well.

Eh to each their own.

LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON DisgruntledVirus. How about providing some original thought if you are so smart?

You first.

Again another mudsling...I started this thread...most here like yourself are simply attacking a poster and not providing any thing to back up yourself. Those that keep 'providing' proof are all using the same links from the same sources.

I was not in an attempt to prove or disprove anything, only to discuss it.

Your fear shows though.

Do you believe Larry Silverstein knocked down the WTC for the insurance money or do you believe that it was the government?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well I thought Alkemyst had some intelligence until this thread. I have since realized he thinks he has a lot, but in fact does not. Casio I never thought was intelligent, and just thought he was the shit. Then IBS the jury was out on. I thought he was just a college guy that just wanted booty, and had no real goals. Turns out he is just a moron as well.

Eh to each their own.

LOOK AT THE BIG BRAIN ON DisgruntledVirus. How about providing some original thought if you are so smart?

You first.

Again another mudsling...I started this thread...most here like yourself are simply attacking a poster and not providing any thing to back up yourself. Those that keep 'providing' proof are all using the same links from the same sources.

I was not in an attempt to prove or disprove anything, only to discuss it.

Your fear shows though.

Your idiocy shows though. You have never answered any challenges to you theories as they are successively proved wrong.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Do you believe Larry Silverstein knocked down the WTC for the insurance money or do you believe that it was the government?

As I've linked the Taibbi conversation it was clearly the govt's idea with Silverstein a willing participant.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

well from that times article its all explained here.....he is totally innocent:

Mr. McQuillan, the spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said on Wednesday the developer felt both an obligation under his lease and a moral obligation to rebuild, rather than walk away. He said that the insurance companies who paid him would be repaid if he prevails.

my sincere apologies for my unfounded alleged allegations of mr. Silverstein who is a gentlemen, scholar and pillar of the community just seeking to do what is right.

 

[Josh]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Josh

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


He is legally obligated to rebuild the towers. You'd be fighting tooth and nail at this point too.

I'll say it again:

Silverstein is legally on the hook for $120 million per year + interest on the bonds AND he must rebuild the WTC.

He has every incentive in the world to try and make this work because, if he doesn't, he loses everything.

If he walked out on the lease he would not be on the hook to rebuild dude. He could give the port authority the insurnace settlement and be done with the whole thing and let htem sort it out.

"walked out on the lease" - have you ever RENTED a place before? Please try and walk out of a lease. Please. I'll be in court laughing at you.

Look at the logical fallacies in this line of thinking:

1. If Silverstein could have walked out of the contract at any point, why is he still trying to rebuild the WTC, despite needing to give up more power and beg for more money?
2. If he could walk out, why didn't he insure the WTC for MORE than his investment?
3. If he really was involved in 9/11, he had to have realized that he had nearly 100 billion in revenue coming over the next 80 years to his company... and he was willing to throw that away for a mere 3.5% up front? The same amount that he INVESTED in the first place?

I wonder how he will answer this...should be interesting :roll:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
well from that times article its all explained here.....he is totally innocent:

Mr. McQuillan, the spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said on Wednesday the developer felt both an obligation under his lease and a moral obligation to rebuild, rather than walk away. He said that the insurance companies who paid him would be repaid if he prevails.

my sincere apologies for my unfounded alleged allegations of mr. Silverstein who is a gentlemen, scholar and pillar of the community just seeking to do what is right.

Okay Slim, I know you aren't the quickest of cats at the best of times, so follow along.

When you sign a lease, you enter into a contract. In this case Silverstein agreed to pay 660 million upfront and 120 million dollars a year for the rights to lease the WTC from the Port Authority. NOMATTER WHAT HAPPENS, HE OWES THEM THAT MONEY.

As for your previous statement about being able to "walk away," read my previous post, I have questions for you about why Silverstein would arrange to destory the WTC, considering he made a 3.5 billion dollar investment six weeks earlier.

One last thing, you are technically right. Silverstein could walk away, but he'd lose his business, his job, his life, his livelihood, and EVERYTHING ELSE.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
well from that times article its all explained here.....he is totally innocent:

Mr. McQuillan, the spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said on Wednesday the developer felt both an obligation under his lease and a moral obligation to rebuild, rather than walk away. He said that the insurance companies who paid him would be repaid if he prevails.

my sincere apologies for my unfounded alleged allegations of mr. Silverstein who is a gentlemen, scholar and pillar of the community just seeking to do what is right.

Okay Slim, I know you aren't the quickest of cats at the best of times, so follow along.

When you sign a lease, you enter into a contract. In this case Silverstein agreed to pay 660 million upfront and 120 million dollars a year for the rights to lease the WTC from the Port Authority. NOMATTER WHAT HAPPENS, HE OWES THEM THAT MONEY.

As for your previous statement about being able to "walk away," read my previous post, I have questions for you about why Silverstein would arrange to destory the WTC, considering he made a 3.5 billion dollar investment six weeks earlier.

One last thing, you are technically right. Silverstein could walk away, but he'd lose his business, his job, his life, his livelihood, and EVERYTHING ELSE.

there is nothing to argue. per the quote above. transition over to alkeymyst or casio I have proudly conceded defeat.

 

[Josh]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
well from that times article its all explained here.....he is totally innocent:

Mr. McQuillan, the spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said on Wednesday the developer felt both an obligation under his lease and a moral obligation to rebuild, rather than walk away. He said that the insurance companies who paid him would be repaid if he prevails.

my sincere apologies for my unfounded alleged allegations of mr. Silverstein who is a gentlemen, scholar and pillar of the community just seeking to do what is right.

Okay Slim, I know you aren't the quickest of cats at the best of times, so follow along.

When you sign a lease, you enter into a contract. In this case Silverstein agreed to pay 660 million upfront and 120 million dollars a year for the rights to lease the WTC from the Port Authority. NOMATTER WHAT HAPPENS, HE OWES THEM THAT MONEY.

As for your previous statement about being able to "walk away," read my previous post, I have questions for you about why Silverstein would arrange to destory the WTC, considering he made a 3.5 billion dollar investment six weeks earlier.

One last thing, you are technically right. Silverstein could walk away, but he'd lose his business, his job, his life, his livelihood, and EVERYTHING ELSE.

there is nothing to argue. per the quote above. transition over to alkeymyst or casio I have proudly conceded defeat.

I can't tell if he's being serious.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
well from that times article its all explained here.....he is totally innocent:

Mr. McQuillan, the spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, said on Wednesday the developer felt both an obligation under his lease and a moral obligation to rebuild, rather than walk away. He said that the insurance companies who paid him would be repaid if he prevails.

my sincere apologies for my unfounded alleged allegations of mr. Silverstein who is a gentlemen, scholar and pillar of the community just seeking to do what is right.

Okay Slim, I know you aren't the quickest of cats at the best of times, so follow along.

When you sign a lease, you enter into a contract. In this case Silverstein agreed to pay 660 million upfront and 120 million dollars a year for the rights to lease the WTC from the Port Authority. NOMATTER WHAT HAPPENS, HE OWES THEM THAT MONEY.

As for your previous statement about being able to "walk away," read my previous post, I have questions for you about why Silverstein would arrange to destory the WTC, considering he made a 3.5 billion dollar investment six weeks earlier.

One last thing, you are technically right. Silverstein could walk away, but he'd lose his business, his job, his life, his livelihood, and EVERYTHING ELSE.

there is nothing to argue. per the quote above. transition over to alkeymyst or casio I have proudly conceded defeat.

jesus, it is a tag-team.

The saddest thing about this thread is that I know you haven't read anything I posted because you choose, instead, to stick your fingers in your ears and scream and stomp as loudly as you can until the big, bad, scary facts go away.

 

[torpid]

What happened to the debate over the destructive power of fire? What's all this other crap? Stay on topic, people. Don't make me have spent 5 minutes assembling links about fires for nothing.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: torpid
What happened to the debate over the destructive power of fire? What's all this other crap? Stay on topic, people. Don't make me have spent 5 minutes assembling links about fires for nothing.

Fire didn't burn down the WTC. It couldn't have. It had to have been taken out by explosives.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: torpid
What happened to the debate over the destructive power of fire? What's all this other crap? Stay on topic, people. Don't make me have spent 5 minutes assembling links about fires for nothing.

Fire didn't burn down the WTC. It couldn't have. It had to have been taken out by explosives.

Thanks for indulging me. So if explosives are all that could have worked, how did people forge swords in the early days? That's just fire, seemingly, yet not only weakened, but melted strong metals. Did Prometheus actually bring explosives down to man? That would seem to be the most logical way to account for this troubling discrepancy.

Are you absolutely sure it wasn't GREEK fire? I mean that would be an understandable mistake. The greek probably just called it fire. It would explain everything. Prometheus brought greek fire, which though mostly just fire, is still enough like explosives that we could forge stuff with it. Rich dude with the insurance policy probably put some in a starbucks to go cup; the really huge one. Venti. Or grande. Whatever. The big one. He probably brought it in every day for a week and then just "accidentally" set it down near a support column. Then, late one night, with an R/C car that had a bluetooth camera on the grill, he knocked them all over. They would still be quite hot being that they were in coffee cups and were GREEK fire.

I believe we have now solved the entire case.

Elementary, Watson.

 

[Ns1]

you sick sonuvabitch, I actually lol'd

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

Originally posted by: Amused
I wonder what it is that compels a small, but significant percentage of the population to buy into obviously contrived and logically impossible conspiracy theories?

It's as if they NEED the conspiracy to be true. They WANT it to be true and will ignore facts to believe it.

Are conspiracy theories the new religion?

I was going to write a sociology paper on CTers a couple of years ago. Was going to try to answer some of those questions, but I decided after a day of research that it was just gonna piss me off.

Well, the key is to publish the facts, and one rebuttal and stop there. If after that people still buy into the CT, they are obviously religiously irrational about it and no amount of commen sense or proof will change their minds.

What really needs to be done are studies that show just WHY people buy into this crap and what can be done to help them.

The strange thing about the WTC CTers is how it started so much like Scientology and continues to be much like it.