More evidence of controlled demolitions on 9/11

[Canon Shooter]

You ignored basically everything I said. You did that twice. In my first post it appears you didn't watch the short video posted. In my second post you ignored everything I said. That shows me that you're not interested in truth, or in having an actual discussion. I answered your question, obviously the powers-that-be benefit. My post was not unclear, so it seems you're being intentionally obtuse.

I asked you a question, to which you responded with the exact same question.

The "powers that be". That's a brush that paints a pretty wide swath. Did Bush benefit? Clinton? Who?

Yes, I watched the video, and it strikes me as being produced by someone who has some sort of vested interest in convincing people that it was an "inside job".

Seriously, it's pretty comical that you think you're going to convince someone it was a conspiracy by posting a 5-1/2 minute video...

 

[buttercup]

I asked you a question, to which you responded with the exact same question.

The "powers that be". That's a brush that paints a pretty wide swath. Did Bush benefit? Clinton? Who?

Yes, I watched the video, and it strikes me as being produced by someone who has some sort of vested interest in convincing people that it was an "inside job".

Seriously, it's pretty comical that you think you're going to convince someone it was a conspiracy by posting a 5-1/2 minute video...

I never said or thought that a short video would convince you. I guess I have to repeat myself, in that post my only point was on the believability of the official story. It's laughable in terms of believability. But no, obviously it takes actual research and an actual pursuit of truth for anyone to be convinced. Unfortunately, many people don't seem to want to know the truth. I get it. No one wants to believe something that horrible. But hey, one day you'll learn. Mark my words.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I never said or thought that a short video would convince you. I guess I have to repeat myself, in that post my only point was on the believability of the official story. It's laughable in terms of believability. But no, obviously it takes actual research and an actual pursuit of truth for anyone to be convinced. Unfortunately, many people don't seem to want to know the truth. I get it. No one wants to believe something that horrible. But hey, one day you'll learn. Mark my words.

Wow.

Such a drama queen.

Who benefited? You've not answered that. Saying "the powers that be" isn't an answer.

Not an intelligent one, anyway...

 

[MisterBeale]

Who reaped the benefit?

". . The deal was unusual in a variety of ways. Although the Port Authority carried only $1.5 billion of insurance coverage on the WTC complex, which earlier that year had been valued at $1.2 billion, Silverstein had insisted on doubling that amount, insuring the buildings for $3.55 billion. Silverstein's insurance broker struggled to put that much coverage in place and ultimately had to split it among 25 dealers. The negotiations were so involved that only temporary contracts were in place for the insurance at the time the lease was signed, and by September the contracts were still being finalized.

Silverstein's group was also explicitly given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed—and even to expand the amount of retail space on the site if rebuilding did take place.

Within hours of the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11th, Silverstein was on the phone to his lawyers, trying to determine if his insurance policies could "construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one." Silverstein spent years in the courts attempting to win $7.1 billion from his $3.55 billion insurance policy and in 2007 walked away with $4.55 billion, the largest single insurance settlement ever. As soon as the deal was announced, Silverstein sued United and American Airlines for a further $3.5 billion for their "negligence" in the 9/11 attacks, a claim that was struck down by the courts but is still on appeal. . . "

<snip>

Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?

After the September 11 attacks, several major newswires reported that there were insiders who tried to profiteer from the options market in anticipation of the

papers.ssrn.com

". . To be sure, insider trading almost certainly did take place in the weeks before 9/11. Although some have used the Commission report to conclude that the story was debunked, the intervening years have seen the release of not one, not two, but three separate scientific papers concluding with high probability that the anomalous trading was the result of advance knowledge.

In "Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001," University of Chicago professor Allen Poteshman concluded: "Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks."

minute mark, 7:36


<snip>

". . . So what did the 9/11 Commission have to say about PTech? Absolutely nothing. The co-chair of the commission, Thomas Kean, had been involved in a $24 million real estate transaction with BMI, one of the PTech investors, but no mention was made of that at the time and the Commission never looked into PTech or its activities on 9/11.

Meanwhile, Cheney's friend al-Qadi has since been removed from the Swiss, European, UN Security Council and US Treasury terrorist sanctions lists.

And Robert Wright? After Vulgar Betrayal was shut down, the FBI did eventually raid PTech's offices in December 2002...but not before the company was given advance warning of the "raid." The very next day then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge declared that PTech "in no way jeopardizes the security of the country."

Oussama Ziade is still wanted by the FBI for lying about al-Qadi's involvement with the company, but the case is now cold.. . "

Honestly Cannon shooter? It goes on and on and on. There were so many folks that benefited financially, it is an enormous scandal, of mind blowing proportions.

But it is part of your ego and identity. You have already made up your mind, NOT to accept the truth. Just like other folks we know, have decided, no matter how many fact and evidence you give them, that the election was corrupt, and the Covid was exaggerated to create a global police state/martial law.

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money​

Episode 308 - 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money​

Corbett • 09/11/2015

Episode 308 – 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

 

[Canon Shooter]

Silverstein spent years in the courts attempting to win $7.1 billion from his $3.55 billion insurance policy and in 2007 walked away with $4.55 billion, the largest single insurance settlement ever.

And that's certainly worthy of consideration.

Thank you for not being a lying scumbag piece of shit coward like buttercup...

 

[MisterBeale]

You were asked a question, failed to answer it, and then demanded that I answer your question.

Sometimes the answers are not easy to prove. A lot of folks don't have that proof right at their finger tips. The folks that run these operations are professionals.

THEY OWN ALL THE INSTITUTIONS.

The government, Wall-street, the universities, big tech, the MSM, government, you name it.

If I asked you, name who funded the gain of function research, and how the knew when to accidentally release it, and had already had laws passed in about 90% of the states to have health authorities mandate "lock-downs," over state and federal constitutions, did you know that those laws were written, as a result of the anthrax scare at the time of 9/11, and it is all connected?

Do you even know that?

 

[MisterBeale]

Not even a little bit.

I just have a difficult time with piece of shit lying scumbags like buttercup who won't answer a simple question but then shit their diapers when I refuse to answer hers.

I've little time for such jerkoffs...

Show me which post she started calling you names, getting nasty and personal with you.

Show me proof where she "lied."

 

[Canon Shooter]

Sometimes the answers are not easy to prove. A lot of folks don't have that proof right at their finger tips. The folks that run these operations are professionals.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked buttercup.

If you're going to insist there was a conspiracy, you'd better be prepared to discuss who reaped the benefit. Well, buttercup didn't do that. Instead she cowered in a corner whining about how I didn't answer her questions.

That's not how this shit works...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Show me which post she started calling you names, getting nasty and personal with you.

Show me proof where she "lied."

She said I asked for addresses.

That's a lie. I did no such thing.

But, because she realized that she's woefully ill-prepared to have an intelligent discussion, she decided that mischaracterizing and lying about what I said was the way to go...

 

[buttercup]

And that's certainly worthy of consideration.

Thank you for not being a lying scumbag piece of shit coward like buttercup...

I answered your question from the start. I just didn't answer it in the way you wanted it. I wanted to start at the beginning (a very good place to start) and you wanted to jump to the end, by demanding names. And then when I don't instantly come up with a list of names for you, you use that as a convenient excuse to not go any further or address anything at all that I said.

Mister Beale is right, your emotional reaction speaks volumes. But hey, that's very typical of this place, so you're certainly not unique in that regard.

 

[buttercup]

She said I asked for addresses.

That's a lie. I did no such thing.

I was being sarcastic in that particular sentence and you know it. Give it a rest.

 

[MisterBeale]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked buttercup.

If you're going to insist there was a conspiracy, you'd better be prepared to discuss who reaped the benefit. Well, buttercup didn't do that. Instead she cowered in a corner whining about how I didn't answer her questions.

That's not how this shit works...

You are partly correct.

One can make the hypothesis that there is a conspiracy, with out having demonstrable proof, and then do a inductive proof.

You just want to refuse to do that, if she does not give specific deductive reasoning to support your logical type of thinking.

You two were moving at cross purposes. It is really no reason to get angry or upset at each other.

We all make this forum our home, just because we might not agree on this issue, or the way to logically analyze it, does not mean it is something to start calling names over.

What is the Difference Between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning - Pediaa.Com

The main difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning involves moving from general observations to specific conclusion..

pediaa.com

Different people, sometimes approach issues in a different manner.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I answered your question from the start. I just didn't answer it in the way you wanted it.

Yeah, generally when I ask a question I expect that the person responding is intelligent enough to provide an actual answer...

I wanted to start at the beginning (a very good place to start) and you wanted to jump to the end, by demanding names.

I see that as the beginning.

You want to insist that there was a conspiracy. The way you figure that out is to first determine who would benefit from it.

You're just not astute enough to realize that...

And then when I don't instantly come up with a list of names for you, you use that as a convenient excuse to not go any further or address anything at all that I said.

Kitten, if you're going to insist that there was a conspiracy, you need to be prepared to identify those who stood to benefit from it. You didn't do that. You came up with some bullshit "the powers that be". That's not an answer, that's a dodge, and an ignorant one at that.

Meanwhile, Mister Beale provided some pretty comprehensive information on someone who was in the position to benefit, and it wasn't someone who'd be considered among the "powers that be". That's why your response was bullshit...

edited-meister

 

[Canon Shooter]

We all make this forum our home

I think that's a big part of the problem.

This place is a departure for me.

It's not "home" in any way, shape or form. If you feel otherwise, I'd suggest you put down the mouse and pick up a book, instead...

 

[buttercup]

You are partly correct.

One can make the hypothesis that there is a conspiracy, with out having demonstrable proof, and then do a inductive proof.

You just want to refuse to do that, if she does not give specific deductive reasoning to support your logical type of thinking.

You two were moving at cross purposes. It is really no reason to get angry or upset at each other.

We all make this forum our home, just because we might not agree on this issue, or the way to logically analyze it, does not mean it is something to start calling names over.

View attachment 702049

What is the Difference Between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning - Pediaa.Com

The main difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning involves moving from general observations to specific conclusion..

pediaa.com

Different people, sometimes approach issues in a different manner.

Very good point.

But in this case I think it's more than that. It's just another dishonest debating tactic that I've seen for years on messageboards. Some people don't want to have an actual debate or discussion, so they'll be extremely demanding, and when you don't instantly give them what they want, in the way they want it, they'll use that as an excuse to not have an actual conversation or address anything you've said. I've seen it a million times. And all I have to say about that is *yawn.*

Those are the type of people I typically don't bother with because it's a waste of time. Meanwhile, I WILL give people who are sincere, civil and respectful the specifics they're asking for, why because they are more interested in truth than "winning" a pissing match.

 

[MisterBeale]

I think that's a big part of the problem.

This place is a departure for me.

It's not "home" in any way, shape or form. If you feel otherwise, I'd suggest you put down the mouse and pick up a book, instead...

I have a gargantuan tome I'm working on right now in fact.

Library of America

Library of America offers American literature, including novels, poems, essays, history, drama and other works from America's best writers, in durable and authoritative editions.

www.loa.org

 

[Canon Shooter]

Very good point.

But in this case I think it's more than that. It's just another dishonest debating tactic that I've seen for years on messageboards. Some people don't want to have an actual debate or discussion, so they'll be extremely demanding, and when you don't instantly give them what they want, in the way they want it, they'll use that as an excuse to not have an actual conversation or address anything you've said. I've seen it a million times. And all I have to say about that is *yawn.*

You know, had you said "I don't know who benefited from it" that would've been one thing.

But you came up with your "the powers that be" bullshit which was a complete on-answer. It was nothing.

And then you started lying...

Edited-meister

 

[buttercup]

What you're apparently not intelligent to understand is that the names matter more than just about anything else.

Yes, of course they matter (especially if we were in a court of law) but again, and this is probably the 4th or 5th time I've said this now, I prefer to start at the beginning, not at the end. When presenting a case, one first has to establish the basics. In this case, the fact that governments DO lie, and DO use manipulative deceptive tactics. You never acknowledged that, or anything else I said in those earlier posts.

Edited-meister

 

[Canon Shooter]

Yes, of course they matter (especially if we were in a court of law) but again, and this is probably the 4th or 5th time I've said this now, I prefer to start at the beginning, not at the end. When presenting a case, one first has to establish the basics. In this case, the fact that governments DO lie, and DO use manipulative deceptive tactics. You never acknowledged that, or anything else I said in those earlier posts.

So, if you suspect there's a conspiracy, you don't think the best question to start off with "Who stood to benefit from it?"

That's a special kind of stupid...

edited-meister

 

[Soupnazi630]

So tell me what did you question about 9/11?

Or could it be that you just don't accept the evidence?

I always accept evidence, You and mike the fag and all the ogther twoofers DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE