yep no controlled demolition of bld 7 or lost libertys since 9/11 alright

[SAYIT]

Bond Market Bubble! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The point remains that trying to "prove" the 9/11 CT by concocting BS about Silverstein's "profit" is bogus.

Until someone or a group, comes forward with absolutely rock solid damning evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, that's all yer gonna' get: Circumstantial Evidence that when viewed by it's self seems normal but when viewed on a timeline or perhaps in conjunction with other evidence points at something other than the "Official Story" pushed by the Gov't and Mass Media.

It's not one thing, but it's the totality of evidence that makes me certain the Gov't isn't telling the full truth about 9/11.

That doesn't make me a Conspiracy Theorist, it just makes me Observant.

Hey, the Gov't pushes a food pyramid that keeps people fat, then pushes pills that have huge side effects to remedy the problems caused by the food that the Gov't promoted in the first place! Why should I listen to them? They have a poor track record of success and telling the truth.

So when two planes crash into buildings and kill 3,000 people on 9/11 and the Govt wants to go to War as a result, don't I have the right to examine ALL the Gov'ts Evidence they have?

Am I a "nutter" for not completely trusting the same Gov't that lied us into Vietnam? Robert McNamara waited until 1995 to say that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident didn't happen the way it was reported.

Am I supposed to wait 30 years to question all the evidence used to send our Military to War?

I don't think you are a Nutter, Mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core CTs here who believe, as Paulitician so eloquently states, "Big Bro lies 24/7, 365."
Believing our elected officials, their staffs, the courts and the media are a monolithic, evil cabal is not rational and more to the point, the bogus claim that Silverstein was involved in some 9/11 plot because he benefitted financially, which he did not, is typically lame CT BS.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I don't think you are a Nutter, Mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core CTs here who believe, as Paulitician so eloquently states, "Big Bro lies 24/7, 365."

When Trillions of Dollars are at stake in Gov't and the Military Industrial Complex, they have to lie to keep the gravy train rollin', startin' with the Federal Reserve! You don't see that? Just because we elected them and this is America, we won WWII, that doesn't mean we can go go to sleep.

Believing our elected officials, their staffs, the courts and the media are a monolithic, evil cabal is not rational and more to the point, the bogus claim that Silverstein was involved in some 9/11 plot because he benefitted financially, which he did not, is typically lame CT BS.

I know a little about Silverstein and his deal. I know he was outbid for the Towers but the other party's deal fell through so he got it. What's more interesting is that apparently the WTC complex office space was hard to fill so it was privatized by Pataki.

See, I happen to know that failing businesses and other insured buildings get torched just for the Insurance Money. I ask you: Is it COMPLETELY out of the Realm of Possibility that the WTC buildings were destroyed for the Insurance Money? No it isn't. Do I wanna' believe it? No!

But when something happens and you don't know exactly why, you gotta' take all the possibilities and through Investigative Techniques, pare the list down until all you have left points Conclusively to the Cause.

What happened after 9/11? Was the Crime Scene cordoned off and an exhaustive investigation completed? No. Most of the steel was hauled of to China in less than a month! Well why was that?

When the Navy Seals got Osama bin Laden how many times did the Gov't change the story? Osama fought back, he didn't fight back, he used his wife as a shield, he didn't use his wife as a shield.

Then, the MOST f*ckin' amazing thing! THEY THREW HIS BODY IN THE F*CKIN" OCEAN! Who the f*ck does THAT? How long had we been at war to get this guy? We finally get him and he should be paraded around right? Like a war trophy! I ask you: Is that the way YOU'D have done it? NO! That's not the way ANY right thinking Gov't would do it!

They had video of Saddam getting his neck stretched. Why no pics of OBL?

WTF?

And just the other day they said "Oh, we have the pics, we just may never show them". What? Oh Bullshit! How stupid do you think we are?

 

[SAYIT]

I don't think you are a Nutter, Mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core CTs here who believe, as Paulitician so eloquently states, "Big Bro lies 24/7, 365."

When Trillions of Dollars are at stake in Gov't and the Military Industrial Complex, they have to lie to keep the gravy train rollin', startin' with the Federal Reserve! You don't see that? Just because we elected them and this is America, we won WWII, that doesn't mean we can go go to sleep.

Believing our elected officials, their staffs, the courts and the media are a monolithic, evil cabal is not rational and more to the point, the bogus claim that Silverstein was involved in some 9/11 plot because he benefitted financially, which he did not, is typically lame CT BS.

I know a little about Silverstein and his deal. I know he was outbid for the Towers but the other party's deal fell through so he got it. What's more interesting is that apparently the WTC complex office space was hard to fill so it was privatized by Pataki.

See, I happen to know that failing businesses and other insured buildings get torched just for the Insurance Money. I ask you: Is it COMPLETELY out of the Realm of Possibility that the WTC buildings were destroyed for the Insurance Money? No it isn't. Do I wanna' believe it? No!

No rational person wants to believe 9/11 was an insurance scam and the insurance companies who paid out billions are pretty good at sniffing out fraud so the obvious question is, do you believe 9/11 was an insurance scan orchestrated by Silverstein?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I don't think you are a Nutter, Mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core CTs here who believe, as Paulitician so eloquently states, "Big Bro lies 24/7, 365."

When Trillions of Dollars are at stake in Gov't and the Military Industrial Complex, they have to lie to keep the gravy train rollin', startin' with the Federal Reserve! You don't see that? Just because we elected them and this is America, we won WWII, that doesn't mean we can go go to sleep.

Believing our elected officials, their staffs, the courts and the media are a monolithic, evil cabal is not rational and more to the point, the bogus claim that Silverstein was involved in some 9/11 plot because he benefitted financially, which he did not, is typically lame CT BS.

I know a little about Silverstein and his deal. I know he was outbid for the Towers but the other party's deal fell through so he got it. What's more interesting is that apparently the WTC complex office space was hard to fill so it was privatized by Pataki.

See, I happen to know that failing businesses and other insured buildings get torched just for the Insurance Money. I ask you: Is it COMPLETELY out of the Realm of Possibility that the WTC buildings were destroyed for the Insurance Money? No it isn't. Do I wanna' believe it? No!

No rational person wants to believe 9/11 was an insurance scam and the insurance companies who paid out billions are pretty good at sniffing out fraud so the obvious question is, do you believe 9/11 was an insurance scan orchestrated by Silverstein?

Silverstein and insurance fraud were a side benefit of the 9-11 attacks. He is friends with Nuttyahoo who stated Israel and its cause benefited from the attacks.
The way Mad is looking at the totality and circumstance of events and possible players is spot on. It is the way law enforcement, detectives and prosecutors establish cases and obtain motives, and compile a case.
See, the very first thing one has to do, if honestly studying this case, is the demise of the WTC and who is said to have flown the planes. Then study how these massive structures, with one being reinforced that wasn't hit by an airliner, all coming down in the manner that they did.
Mad is correct in his analysis of the situation, it is a natural sequence that you are not considering, and are ignoring. You make a very poor case for adhering to your beliefs, and
you refuse to honestly consider any objections to them, despite some very good points being made against them.

I will ask you once again to explain why did the WTC complex buildings experience only minimal resistance to the collapse front? Let's start there shall we?

 

[eots]

the point remains that trying to "prove" the 9/11 ct by concocting bs about silverstein's "profit" is bogus. :d

until someone or a group, comes forward with absolutely rock solid damning evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, that's all yer gonna' get: Circumstantial evidence that when viewed by it's self seems normal but when viewed on a timeline or perhaps in conjunction with other evidence points at something other than the "official story" pushed by the gov't and mass media.

It's not one thing, but it's the totality of evidence that makes me certain the gov't isn't telling the full truth about 9/11.

That doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist, it just makes me observant.

Hey, the gov't pushes a food pyramid that keeps people fat, then pushes pills that have huge side effects to remedy the problems caused by the food that the gov't promoted in the first place! Why should i listen to them? They have a poor track record of success and telling the truth.

So when two planes crash into buildings and kill 3,000 people on 9/11 and the govt wants to go to war as a result, don't i have the right to examine all the gov'ts evidence they have?

Am i a "nutter" for not completely trusting the same gov't that lied us into vietnam? Robert mcnamara waited until 1995 to say that the gulf of tonkin incident didn't happen the way it was reported.

Am i supposed to wait 30 years to question all the evidence used to send our military to war?

i don't think you are a nutter, mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core cts here who believe, as paulitician so eloquently states, "big bro lies 24/7, 365."
believing our elected officials, their staffs, the courts and the media are a monolithic, evil cabal is not rational and more to the point, the bogus claim that silverstein was involved in some 9/11 plot because he benefitted financially, which he did not, is typically lame ct bs. :d

waterboard him and he would confess...

 

[GuyPinestra]

Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.

I think he made out quite well.

 

[georgephillip]

I hate it that I am making another thread about 9/11 since I keep saying it is like the kennedy assassination,done and over with and just like with it,no justice will ever come about to where the real terrorists are put behind bars where they belong.

But after seeing this latest video by Richard Gage,i could not resist making this thread.Yep,according to the official conspiracy theory apologists in denial here, we havent lost libertys and freedoms since 9/11 and bld 7 wasnt a controlled demolition. The loyal Bush dupes in denial here of course wont watch this video.they will never do something like that. they will only listen to the paid shills listed in my sig here.


Richard Gage New 10-minute Showcase Video - YouTube

Two planes.
Three steel-framed towers.
2.25 seconds of free-fall @WTC7
The time is long past for a full investigation.
Bush, Cheney, and Rummy live on CSPAN before they die.

 

[SAYIT]

You think the sale of debris is evidence that some weird faction of the government conspired with the Clinton administration to blow up the symbol of capitalism in the United States by synchronizing the time schedule of a bunch of crazy jihadists crashing into the Towers with planes? Are you nuts?

These loons will try to make anything seem to confirm their wacky beliefs. Except of course, explain how this conspiracy was carried out. There's a reason people usually ignore them. Hint to CT's: It's not because they are afraid you're right.

I love how all you frady cat deniars...

9/11 Hand Job is a prime example of what happens if you allow your boy to live in your basement beyond age 23. Message to parents: Get 'em out of the house!

 

[SAYIT]

Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.

No he didn't and you keep posting that lie despite knowing it's a lie.
Whatsamatta Guy ... the truth not strong enough to make your case?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.

No he didn't and you keep posting that lie despite knowing it's a lie.
Whatsamatta Guy ... the truth not strong enough to make your case?

You keep telling me it's a lie but you provide ZERO evidence to back your assertion.

He paid $124 million to get his 99 year lease.

He collected over $4 billion from the terrorism clause in his insurance policy.

Which of those two statements is false?

Provide proof, please.

 

[SAYIT]

Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.

No he didn't and you keep posting that lie despite knowing it's a lie.
Whatsamatta Guy ... the truth not strong enough to make your case?

You keep telling me it's a lie but you provide ZERO evidence to back your assertion.

He paid $124 million to get his 99 year lease.

He collected over $4 billion from the terrorism clause in his insurance policy.

Which of those two statements is false?

Provide proof, please.

It doesn't seem to matter how often your lying is refutted ... you continue lying. You will, as usual, ignore the facts in order to persue your lies.

"The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including 1 World Trade Center at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
"Ground was broken on the construction of 1 World Trade Center on April 27, 2006.[31] Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[paulitician]

Hold on, the Goose Steppers are checking with their handlers for an appropriate & predictable Big Brother response. Give em some time.

 

[georgephillip]

No he didn't and you keep posting that lie despite knowing it's a lie.
Whatsamatta Guy ... the truth not strong enough to make your case?

You keep telling me it's a lie but you provide ZERO evidence to back your assertion.

He paid $124 million to get his 99 year lease.

He collected over $4 billion from the terrorism clause in his insurance policy.

Which of those two statements is false?

Provide proof, please.

It doesn't seem to matter how often your lying is refutted ... you continue lying. You will, as usual, ignore the facts in order to persue your lies.

"The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including 1 World Trade Center at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
"Ground was broken on the construction of 1 World Trade Center on April 27, 2006.[31] Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your link:

"After the September 11 attacks, the United States Congress approved $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to fund development in the private sector at lower-than-market interest rates. $3.4 billion remained unallocated in March 2006 designated for Lower Manhattan, with about half of the funds under the control of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the other half under the control of former Governor George Pataki."

Two planes.
Three steel-framed skyscrapers.
2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 acceleration.
Magical box cutters?

 

[SAYIT]

You keep telling me it's a lie but you provide ZERO evidence to back your assertion.

He paid $124 million to get his 99 year lease.

He collected over $4 billion from the terrorism clause in his insurance policy.

Which of those two statements is false?

Provide proof, please.

It doesn't seem to matter how often your lying is refutted ... you continue lying. You will, as usual, ignore the facts in order to persue your lies.

"The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including 1 World Trade Center at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
"Ground was broken on the construction of 1 World Trade Center on April 27, 2006.[31] Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your link:

"After the September 11 attacks, the United States Congress approved $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to fund development in the private sector at lower-than-market interest rates. $3.4 billion remained unallocated in March 2006 designated for Lower Manhattan, with about half of the funds under the control of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the other half under the control of former Governor George Pataki."

Two planes.
Three steel-framed skyscrapers.
2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 acceleration.
Magical box cutters?

Uh-huh. So what has that to do with the FACT that GuyPinesta's claim about Silverstein reaping a windfall gain from 9/11 was bogus? You'll notice that after receiving proof that his BS was BS, Guy vanished like a fart in the wind. Typical ignorance and cowardice.

 

[georgephillip]

How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?

 

[Mr. Jones]

How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?

They ignore questions like this by jumping over to something less difficult and engaging in other aspects of 9-11, like Silverstein, or will ask how "thousands" of people could keep a secret. The very first and most important things are of course what you just asked, and NIST and FEMA, have not answered it, and neither have any of the OCT people on here.

Once you begin to understand why credible intellects have objected to the NIST, and comprehend what the fuss is about, then you can begin to start researching who may have been able to facilitate the WTC destruction, and it does not point to AL CIA DUH.
The questions as to who benefited the most, who had opportunity, motives, and what was planned and going on that day and the reactions to the attacking planes, have their place, but you are dealing with people who don't even want to understand that the WTC towers and WTC 7 did not come down the way the NIST and others have them believing.
They are trying to attack parts of the event that are, in their view, easier to defend while ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

[paulitician]

Yep, we're more free now than we've ever been. Well, that's what Big Brother and his Goose Steppers keep telling us anyway.

 

[SAYIT]

Quote: Originally Posted by GuyPinestra
You keep telling me it's a lie but you provide ZERO evidence to back your assertion.
He paid $124 million to get his 99 year lease.
He collected over $4 billion from the terrorism clause in his insurance policy.
Which of those two statements is false?
Provide proof, please.

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
It doesn't seem to matter how often your lying is refutted ... you continue lying. You will, as usual, ignore the facts in order to pursue your lies.

"The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including 1 World Trade Center at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
"Ground was broken on the construction of 1 World Trade Center on April 27, 2006.[31] Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote: Originally Posted by georgephillip
Your link:
"After the September 11 attacks, the United States Congress approved $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to fund development in the private sector at lower-than-market interest rates. $3.4 billion remained unallocated in March 2006 designated for Lower Manhattan, with about half of the funds under the control of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the other half under the control of former Governor George Pataki."

Two planes.
Three steel-framed skyscrapers.
2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 acceleration.
Magical box cutters?

Quote: SAYIT
Uh-huh. So what has that to do with the FACT that GuyPinesta's claim about Silverstein reaping a windfall gain from 9/11 was bogus? You'll notice that after receiving proof that his BS was BS, Guy vanished like a fart in the wind. Typical ignorance and cowardice.

How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?

So now you wish to play the rational loon? Guy's point was clearly that Silverstein benefitted from 9/11 and therefore had to have been part of some nefarious CT. You defended his silliness until faced with the truth and now you claim we should wait to determine his loss or gain. It seems to me you are playing both sides, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

Yep, we're more free now than we've ever been. Well, that's what Big Brother and his Goose Steppers keep telling us anyway.

Exactly what were you doing before 9/11 that you can't do today, Princess? Carrying boxcutters aboard commercial jets?

 

[georgephillip]

How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?

They ignore questions like this by jumping over to something less difficult and engaging in other aspects of 9-11, like Silverstein, or will ask how "thousands" of people could keep a secret. The very first and most important things are of course what you just asked, and NIST and FEMA, have not answered it, and neither have any of the OCT people on here.

Once you begin to understand why credible intellects have objected to the NIST, and comprehend what the fuss is about, then you can begin to start researching who may have been able to facilitate the WTC destruction, and it does not point to AL CIA DUH.
The questions as to who benefited the most, who had opportunity, motives, and what was planned and going on that day and the reactions to the attacking planes, have their place, but you are dealing with people who don't even want to understand that the WTC towers and WTC 7 did not come down the way the NIST and others have them believing.
They are trying to attack parts of the event that are, in their view, easier to defend while ignoring the elephant in the room.

Don't forget the donkeys in the room.

Elected Republicans AND Democrats will be highly resistant to a full congressional investigation of 911.If a majority of Americans become convinced their government facilitated an attack on the US homeland, the Republican Party will vanish from the page of time and Democrats won't be far behind.

There are existing third parties already appearing on most ballots across the US; possibly, candidates from the Green, Libertarian, AIP, or Peace and Freedom parties would be more willing to make 911 Truth a hot-button topic in some future election?