Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is a 9/11 truther/holocaust denier smarter than a 5th grader?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Looking at their evidence is what led me to my beliefs. I try not to go into things the truther way.

I was talking about your theory/believe that CIT are in it for the money. It holds no water at all, as you could easily find out if you wanted to. Like we twoofies like to say: Do your own research.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I wouldn't necessarily say they're in it for the money... that might actually could be left on the sidelines... Gage would outdo them any day in that category.... the whole paranoia thing about everyone not agreeing with the NOC witness being government agents, and similar however makes them look less than competent at best, completely insane at worst. Their little "enemies list" full of pictures of their critics, doesn't exactly help with the image of being totally mature either... Granted debating on this forum as a "truther" isn't exactly a walk in the park either, at least in my experience I haven't seen the same kind of listing where various pics are all scrounged into one thread like a wiki reference to ID people compulsively...

 

[Sabretooth]

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

Residues?
Left over det-cord?
Witnesses?
Audio of explosives?
Visuals of ejected material?
Seismic Indicators?*

How do you believe in something that you have absolutely no evidence of occuring?

Clayton, are you (or any other truther for that matter) ever going to address this (Post# 5430)?


*= ETA

 

[jaydeehess]

I was talking about your theory/believe that CIT are in it for the money. It holds no water at all, as you could easily find out if you wanted to. Like we twoofies like to say: Do your own research.

Given the utter ridiculousness of the CiT senario for the Pentagon on Sept 11/01 one can only consider a few possibilities;
- they are paranoid and delusional, and operating on a political worldview bias
- they are simply quite stupid
- or they are making it up to try and garner some cash from others who do fit the two above descriptions.



,,, and while I am at it, I was here when poster Lyte Trip was telling us to wait for the 'smoking gun', 'blow it out of the water' evidence he and his CiT had compiled. Weeks went by and nothing,,,,, then,,,, "Pentacon". I was wholly UNimpressed. As time went by and the CiT embellished their senario even more I saw obvious manipulation of eyewitness statements, I saw them slandering an innocent taxi driver, I saw them out and out lie about what the evidence was (often in collaboration with the Pft).
I consider the CiT to be in the same league as the WTC 'no-planers'.

Tell me CE, does the CiT still say that the (entry) hole in the Pentagon was only 20 feet wide and thus too small?

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, a loss.

Insurance payout minus reconstruction cost minus loss of business (rents payed by tenants). For the Twin Towers, that's

4.6b - 3.1b - 1.8b = -0.3billion US dollars. Notice the negative sign before the result. In accounting, that indicates a loss.
The 1.8 billion in lost business is a VERY conservative estimate, by the way. True loss would be higher. Here is how I calculated it:
- Silversteen pays an annual lease of 100 million to the Port Authority (he still does).
- He signed the deal expecting to make an annual profit that certainly ran into the tens of millions annually.
- Lease and profits add up to around 150 million, and probably a lot more (on an investment of 3 billion, a business man would expect a return of more than the 1.7% that 50 million are). Income from tenant rent, minus maintenance costs which Silverstein doesn't have anymore, must have been at least that high). The new WTC1 won't open before 2013, so Silverstein has this loss for a period of 12 years. 12 * 150 million = 1.8 billion.


So these are my numbers.


Now you calculate who he cut a profit, please, or concede that you can't

What? You are suggesting that Silverstein is on the hook for the rebuilding? Please research first then post.

So you now realize that both you and Oystein were wrong.

I did not have the time to review the whole thread since I was here last but would someone tell me if RedI ever did refute Oystein's numbers and show that "Silverstein made out like a bandit"?


,,,,,,,,or are we just to believe RedI because RedI says so?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Given the utter ridiculousness of the CiT senario for the Pentagon on Sept 11/01 one can only consider a few possibilities;
- they are paranoid and delusional, and operating on a political worldview bias
- they are simply quite stupid
- or they are making it up to try and garner some cash from others who do fit the two above descriptions.



,,, and while I am at it, I was here when poster Lyte Trip was telling us to wait for the 'smoking gun', 'blow it out of the water' evidence he and his CiT had compiled. Weeks went by and nothing,,,,, then,,,, "Pentacon". I was wholly UNimpressed. As time went by and the CiT embellished their senario even more I saw obvious manipulation of eyewitness statements, I saw them slandering an innocent taxi driver, I saw them out and out lie about what the evidence was (often in collaboration with the Pft).
I consider the CiT to be in the same league as the WTC 'no-planers'.

Tell me CE, does the CiT still say that the (entry) hole in the Pentagon was only 20 feet wide and thus too small?

Don't feign ignorance, jaydeehess. The current last post in the thread discussing the latest state of their research is by you, and my last post in it is directed at you:

No, it didn't. It's prominent in the presentation.

This is my 357th post in this thread. If anyone is honestly interested in my opinions on the various details, read it. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Dawn Vignola is neighter a NoC nor SoC witness. Far too far away to judge. She is a plane witness who thinks it hit the building. Read mudlark's posts early in this thread for a dissection of the lists of alleged SoC witnesses circulated by the TruthSims and parroted by the DebunkSims.

Cya.

 

[RedIbis]

Silverstein is doing so well paying rent on all the buildings he lost at WTC that:

LNR Forecloses On 575 Lexington Ave February 18, 2011 04:00 PM

LNR Property Partners has filed foreclosure papers on 575 Lexington Avenue, a 638,000-square-foot New York office building owned by Silverstein Properties. The servicer filed the papers after being unable to come to an agreement with Silverstein to restructure the $320 million loan, which was split into two and securitized in BACM 2007-1 and BACM 2007-2, according to Trepp, LLC.
http://onespot.wsj.com/realestate/2011/02/02/39b30/silverstein-faces-foreclosure-at-575

So to prove what a loss Silverstein has suffered you post an article that proves Silverstein paid too much for real estate he bought in 2006. This is why he had to foreclose, and he obviously wasn't suffering too badly.

 

[RedIbis]

I did not have the time to review the whole thread since I was here last but would someone tell me if RedI ever did refute Oystein's numbers and show that "Silverstein made out like a bandit"?


,,,,,,,,or are we just to believe RedI because RedI says so?

It's the other way around. Oystein based his numbers on the lie that Silverstein is responsible for the rebuilding of the Towers. He's not. If Oystein ever owned up to this mistake is the question you should be asking.

 

[jaydeehess]

Don't feign ignorance, jaydeehess. The current last post in the thread discussing the latest state of their research is by you, and my last post in it is directed at you:

Had you READ the entire post of mine which you quoted AND READ the entire post in which I responded to your non-reading of my first post then YOU would know that I addressed the point a couple of times.

Your last post quote mines my first one, my last post addressed the point you were making in your last post quite well, and I point out that you completely misrepresented what I had said..

So now CE we have to believe one of two things about YOU.
- you either read nothing beyond the first sentence of a post
- you are paranoid and delusional yourself and therefore simply cannot fathom content that contradicts your twisted worldview.

IMHO of course, and I am willing to entertain other senarios .

 

[Childlike Empress]

You have proven in the other thread that you are either not capable of understanding the topic or unwilling to do so. You don't look good on your high horse - it's rotten.

 

[jaydeehess]

It's the other way around. Oystein based his numbers on the lie that Silverstein is responsible for the rebuilding of the Towers. He's not. If Oystein ever owned up to this mistake is the question you should be asking.

Fact of the matter IS that Silverstein has said (and was ordered by the courts IIRC) that ALL insurance proceeds will go to the rebuilidng of the structures. THEREFORE Oystein's accounting is either correct and Silverstein has lost money to date, or his accounting is incorrect and its up to you to show that.

The point of whether or not Silverstein is obligated to rebuild is MOOT if he actually is rebuilding them. Why is that simple point not obvious?

 

[Childlike Empress]

And the fact that you come here and adress me as if nothing has happened makes it look like you are the one who is delusional.

 

[jaydeehess]

You have proven in the other thread that you are either not capable of understanding the topic or unwilling to do so. You don't look good on your high horse - it's rotten.

<<sighs>>

I said that the CiT have ignored the basic fact that all of the eyewitnesses who were in position to see such a thing occur said that the aircraft hit the Pentagon.

You replied with a biased account of ONE eyewitness statement.

I then re-iterated that MY point is that the CiT have an aircraft flying towards the Pentagon, witnessed by many people, who give divergent accounts of the path of the aircraft but that every single one that was in position to see it says that the plane hit the Pentagon,,,, and the CiT then ignores/brushes aside/discounts this ONE convergent point among witnesses and substitutes, without evidence, a senario in which the plane pulls up and over the structure, unseen by anyone anywhere. They further contend , without any evidence for and much evidence counter, that the destruction wrought was accomplished by means other than a large fast aircraft impact.

My horse is quite alive and well. What is rotten to the core is the CiT senario, whatever their motives for putting it forth.

 

[jaydeehess]

And the fact that you come here and adress me as if nothing has happened makes it look like you are the one who is delusional.

oddly enough, and pointed out by you above, I have the last post in that thread.
I happen to believe that I was quite clear in what I said. Too bad you cannot read more than a few words before responding. Do you sputter and spit while doing so?

ETA: you did manage to prove me wrong on one point though CE. In responding to my wondering if you are delusional you illustrate that you read beyond the first few words of at least that post !

 

[Childlike Empress]

This was after you've claimed to have watched NSA but made fundamentally false statements about it's content. Either delusional or dishonest. In any case, not worth my time. Cya.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

again for the silverstein complicity proponents... where's your proof that he set up an elaborate scam? I'm pretty sure fter ten years you guys would have something other than random guesses...

 

[Childlike Empress]

ETA: you did manage to prove me wrong on one point though CE. In responding to my wondering if you are delusional you illustrate that you read beyond the first few words of at least that post !

I don't like point-by-point debunking quote orgy's. I read posts as a whole and reply to the content as a whole. If there's nothing worth responding to, i'll, if anything, just tell you briefly that there's nothing worth responding to. That thread speaks for itself and I also don't have to have the last word. Rest assured that I have a very good memory, which made me remember your participation and pointing out the "feigned ignorance". Otherwise I wouldn't have responded at all.

 

[beachnut]

Given the utter ridiculousness of the CiT senario for the Pentagon on Sept 11/01 one can only consider a few possibilities;
- they are paranoid and delusional, and operating on a political worldview bias
- they are simply quite stupid
- or they are making it up to try and garner some cash from others who do fit the two above descriptions.



,,, and while I am at it, I was here when poster Lyte Trip was telling us to wait for the 'smoking gun', 'blow it out of the water' evidence he and his CiT had compiled. Weeks went by and nothing,,,,, then,,,, "Pentacon". I was wholly UNimpressed. As time went by and the CiT embellished their senario even more I saw obvious manipulation of eyewitness statements, I saw them slandering an innocent taxi driver, I saw them out and out lie about what the evidence was (often in collaboration with the Pft).
I consider the CiT to be in the same league as the WTC 'no-planers'.

Tell me CE, does the CiT still say that the (entry) hole in the Pentagon was only 20 feet wide and thus too small?

They fit all the possibilities with their idiotic investigation which only fools a few who have no clue what happen on 911, or an understanding of physics.

- they are paranoid and delusional
- they are quite stupid
- they are out to try and garner cash from others who do fit the two above descriptions
CIT. The irony, Balsamo uses these clowns as his investigation team. It matches his 11.2gs of moron math.

On the whole, CIT make moronic claims only a few idiots will adopt as their own.

 

[RedIbis]

Fact of the matter IS that Silverstein has said (and was ordered by the courts IIRC) that ALL insurance proceeds will go to the rebuilidng of the structures. THEREFORE Oystein's accounting is either correct and Silverstein has lost money to date, or his accounting is incorrect and its up to you to show that.

The point of whether or not Silverstein is obligated to rebuild is MOOT if he actually is rebuilding them. Why is that simple point not obvious?

You are woefully ill-educated on this topic. A simple google search will pull up all of the recent court decisions. You seem not to want to accept the fact that Silverstein is not going to be financing any rebuilding, (other than WTC 7, which I believe he's always owned outright) out of the insurance proceeds.

Port Authority Officials and Ground Zero Developer to Discuss Their Latest Impasse - NYTimes_com

Mr. Silverstein recently asked the Port Authority to serve as a guarantor of the construction loans for two of his three towers. The authority, which is already building its own $3 billion office tower known as 1 World Trade Center and the hub, offered to help with only one of Mr. Silverstein’s towers. The other two towers, the authority said, could be built as the real estate market improves. Or, Mr. Silverstein could proceed with private financing.

Mr. Silverstein has since assailed the authority for what he said was its pessimistic view of the real estate market, which he says will rebound by the time the towers are completed in 2015.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker whose district includes Lower Manhattan, said that work should proceed on two of Mr. Silverstein’s three towers and should invest some of his own money in the buildings.



Mr. Silverstein, who regards the insurance proceeds as his money, has shown no intention of doing so. He has told officials that he has already shared the proceeds with the authority. At the same time, Governor Paterson and Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, who control the Port Authority, have expressed wariness about pouring additional public funds into the office towers.

My bolds. Perhaps now, you can understand why Oystein needs to recalculate.