• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Silverstein on phone with insurance company about controlled demolition

RedIbis said:
Is your google broke or are you (in your favorite word) a liar?
Click to expand...

Maybe this explains why RedIbis lies so often then gets offended when he's called on it. I suspect he doesn't even understand what a lie is. RedIbis, could I suggest you re-sit kindergarten, where they explain these things very simply? In the meantime, here's a simple guide:

Saying something you know isn't true = a lie.
Not doing something somebody else thinks you should do = not a lie.

Does that help at all?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
It doesn't matter if the money was willed to him or if it was procured by a loan. If there was money lost through the destruction of WTC 7 then money was lost and it has been established that money was lost.

Does anyone think it's more likely for Silverstein to have been a part of some conspiracy to destroy a building whose reconstruction costs exceeded insurance payouts if the money to construct the original building was from a bank or group of banks?


ETA: the new building is still 30% vacant too.
Click to expand...

What money was lost? What money was recovered? What is the difference in these two figures?
 
RedIbis said:
What money was lost? What money was recovered? What is the difference in these two figures?
Click to expand...
Are you even capable of making a coherent argument. An honest, literate adult would state the facts, source them, provide analysis and draw a conclusion based on the facts and analysis.

Compare that with what you wrote.
 
DavidJames said:
Are you even capable of making a coherent argument. An honest, literate adult would state the facts, source them, provide analysis and draw a conclusion based on the facts and analysis.

Compare that with what you wrote.
Click to expand...

It's always funny when a so-called debunker questions literacy and can't even end a question with a question mark.
 
RedIbis said:
It's always funny when a so-called debunker questions literacy and can't even end a question with a question mark.
Click to expand...

Modern usage dictates that the use of a question mark is optional when dealing with a a rhetorical question, particularly when the answer is completely obvious.

Thanks for your post, though, sparky.

Keep up the great Truthering!
 
RedIbis said:
It's always funny when a so-called debunker questions literacy and can't even end a question with a question mark.
Click to expand...
I wasn't questioning your literacy, I was questioning your honesty, integrity and ability to form a coherent argument. As I expected you have none and aren't able to, respectively.

I can add reading comprehension to the adult level skills which you lack.

I'll go back to ignoring you.
 
DGM said:
Personally, I don't care.
Click to expand...


I think that's rapidly becoming the prevailing, and the most appropriate, answer to all Truther insinuations.

"To see if you know." :rolleyes:

Since whatever else they might claim, their one honest desire is to get people to care about their claims, the fact that hardly anyone does any more is quite a spectacular failure.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I think that's rapidly becoming the prevailing, and the most appropriate, answer to all Truther insinuations.

"To see if you know." :rolleyes:

Since whatever else they might claim, their one honest desire is to get people to care about their claims, the fact that hardly anyone does any more is quite a spectacular failure.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Then shut down this subforum already. When someone makes claims challenging the official story, it's superdebunkers unleashed. When verifiable information is not favorable to the official story or is suspicious, their google fingers lock up.

Let's just end this pretense that this is supposed to be a place of genuine inquiry and discourse. I suspect that nearly anyone participating in this "discussion" is already aware that LS made out like a bandit and now pretend they don't care or it doesn't matter.
 
RedIbis said:
Let's just end this pretense that this is supposed to be a place of genuine inquiry and discourse. I suspect that nearly anyone participating in this "discussion" is already aware that LS made out like a bandit and now pretend they don't care or it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Just show us that he did. What part of that don't you get? Subtract what he spent from what he got. It's your claim, support it!
 
RedIbis said:
Then shut down this subforum already. When someone makes claims challenging the official story, it's superdebunkers unleashed. When verifiable information is not favorable to the official story or is suspicious, their google fingers lock up.

Let's just end this pretense that this is supposed to be a place of genuine inquiry and discourse. I suspect that nearly anyone participating in this "discussion" is already aware that LS made out like a bandit and now pretend they don't care or it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Shut it down because you won't answer a question? Seriously?

We would have had to have done that three years ago Red.

C'mon sport, prove that LS made out like a bandit. C'mon champ, do it.

MADE. OUT. LIKE. A. BANDIT.

Red, here is your chance, prove something for once.

/there is no way he will ever cite anything in support of this claim. EVER.
 
RedIbis said:
I suspect that nearly anyone participating in this "discussion" is already aware that LS made out like a bandit and now pretend they don't care or it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Yes, and in past times this kind of assertion would invariably result in debunkers falling over each other to prove you're wrong, which was no doubt a source of great amusement.

But when no one cares what you "suspect" there is no problem to address any more.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
RedIbis said:
When someone makes claims challenging the official story, it's superdebunkers unleashed. When verifiable information is not favorable to the official story or is suspicious, their google fingers lock up.
Click to expand...

Sadly, so do the google fingers of those asked to provide evidence to support their claims. RedIbis, if you had information that supports your suspicions and you had a genuine intention of publicising those suspicions, you'd post your evidence. Refusing to provide evidence for your claims, and complaining that nobody else will do it for you, is the act of a mere troll. So the ball's in your court: put up or shut up. Anything else will prove you're not worth anyone's attention.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
I don't buy that you guys had such a hard time finding this but I can understand why you avoid this site:



http://www.historycommons.org/searc...ects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on
Click to expand...

You'll have to excuse my apology for not linking here. The site has been linked to before, and I believe I have seen this post. It's just that I'm looking for answers and since the post is still "just asking questions", I didn't think it had anything useful to say.

I still think the Washington Post is a better source of news. And it's not owned by the Moonies...I mean the Unification Church.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
You'll have to excuse my apology for not linking here. The site has been linked to before, and I believe I have seen this post. It's just that I'm looking for answers and since the post is still "just asking questions", I didn't think it had anything useful to say.

I still think the Washington Post is a better source of news. And it's not owned by the Moonies...I mean the Unification Church.
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about? There isn't a single question in that link. It's simply the most comprehensive 9/11 related website available and the place where you can find what LS personally invested, what his company invested, what he made off the lawsuits and how much additional money he's currently seeking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom