Based on the tortured set of comments, get a dictionary.

Look up the word "Irony."


There is no reason to believe that is true. The Truthers are a heterogeneous group with many different agenda, and few seem particularly interested in additional investigations of any sort. They are about making accusations, laying blame,


I believe that the investigations that have been done cannot be significantly improved upon. So no... I never favor slaying again the already slain


Gong.

The secret was not kept.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/secrets-of-the-manhattan-project-were-leaked-a-staggeri-1626524763


Bullshit.

You are an antisemite and hate the Jews, period. This is proved by your apparent conviction (based on your last few posts) that anybody with a Jewish name is a Zionist propagandist.

It doesn't help that so many of the sources you list to defend your position are from racist and neonazi sources.


None of that is evidence he was a Zionist. Do you not know what a Zionist is?


There was no plan to remove asbestos from WTC7. Your claim that he only made a $100 million or so investment is still proved a lie.


if it might take an actuary, how do you pretend to know it's a long shot? And let's not forget... the evidence that his children did not go to work that day is apparently nowhere.


That's the best you can do? That's you best response to the demonstration that Silverstein's comment had nothing to with demolishing the building? Changing the subject?


Do you not know how explosive demolitions work? Hint: It does not take hours for the explosions to work.


Not possible. It does not matter how you dress the workers. Dress then as unicorns and fairies for all it matters. The work of demolition prep is intrusive, destructive, and impossible to conceal. Walls must be torn down. Structural members be exposed for explosives placement. Miles of wiring must be run down halls, out windows and through doors. Structural members must be pre-cut.

This is why demolitions experts without exception declare the claim impossible


No. It absolutely does not.


That's the same "dancing Israeli" story that has already been debunked. Neither of those sources support your claim that hundreds of Israeli spies were rounded up and deported.


Again, it was never missing. Read the link I gave you.

Further, it was not "announced the day before." The accounting problem (to include the dollar amount) was announced in February of 2000.


Proving that whatever the reason the Pentagon was attacked, that wasn't it.


Because I was getting bored.


Because I missed the question.

Truthers wrote letters to my wife's employer and called my employer with false accusations of (get this) our alleged involvement in the attacks themselves. They also created horrific fake Facebook pages for my children.

You are almost as despicable as birthers.

So? That follows from what I wrote... how exactly?


Assumes facts not in evidence. "Hi! How are you? Thank you for doing this." Hardly requires the vetting of a team of lawyers.


Actually, the law was written to prevent intimidation at the polls. It was not written to encourage anything.

As far as I can tell, Bill Clinton was simply making a nice gesture to the poll workers.

Pretty much, that's how the law works. It is a technical discipline.


Why? Is the mere presence of Bill Clinton something that magically gets people to change their vote?


My wife and I were walking down the Vegas Strip a number of years ago, and could not understand why people were running past us, and then stopping to turn and take our picture.

I looked to my left, and realized, holy crap, I was walking right next to Bill Clinton and Steve Wynn. Clinton was apparently in town to play the golf course at Wynn's new casino.

I realized who he was right away. I did not suddenly have the urge to vote for him.

Oh, child. Start something? I ended this several posts ago.

Literally, yes. Idiomatically, no. The actual usage of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" has nothing to do with whether or not an explanation is being offered that contains a conspiracy. It has to do with the paranoiac reasoning and tortured treatment of "evidence" with which the theory is constructed.

Generally, they revolve around the indefensible conviction that otherwise prosaic events are directed by secret organizations of great power and evil intent. They usually require the (actually impossible) cooperation of huge numbers of people who all display a superhuman capacity to keep the conspiracy a secret. And they depend on such convoluted matrices of ad hoc explanations that they quickly become internally contradictory and self refuting, and ultimately collapse under their own weight.


Of course. If the reason for opposing a political movement is racist, then you are being racist against a political movement.


Let's just take a quick look, shall we?


Gong!

There is no evidence that Larry Silverstein is a Zionist. While he is a wealthy American Jew who has supported Israel, his interests in Israel have been almost exclusively financial. He has not moved there, and has made no effort to claim Israeli citizenship. Neither have any of his children.


Gong!

The investment made by Silverstein Properties was $3.2 billion. And the insurance payment was predicated on using the money to rebuild the WTC.


It has been estimated that 17% of all people miss work every day. There were 50,000 people who worked in the WTC, meaning that on any given day, 8,500 people would not be there. Assuming this is true (I cannot verify the claim regarding his children) they were merely 3 out of 8,500.


Gong!

Here is Silverstein's actual quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Undisputed fact: he was talking to the fire commander

-Undisputed fact: Neither Silverstein nor the fire commander were in the demolition business

Why the hell would he tell a fire commander to initiate explosive demolition of a building?

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

I'm sure you would insist he was lying. But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

There are more than a dozen similar accounts by firefighters that had been inside WTC7.


This is actually one of the most important pieces of evidence against controlled demolitions. It would have required months of intrusive prework to lay explosives, create a demolitions infrastructure and otherwise set the event... and nobody in any of the three buildings claimed to have been demolished ever noticed.

Remember I told you I was a Nuclear Surety Officer? Among our responsibilities was to keep our warheads out of Russian hands by setting them up for emergency destruction. This required extensive experience with explosives, detonators, det cord, and blasting caps. To prepare a building also requires manual demolition to expose the relevant structural members that must be severed for demolition to occur. The claim that any of these three buildings can have been pre-wired for demolition with none of the 50,000 or so people working there ever noticing is... well... delusional.


Since it would have been impossible in the first place, the question is pointless.


I can find nothing that backs up the claim of any close friendship at all between Silverstein and these Israeli politicians.


This claim has been resoundingly debunked for more than a decade.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Dancing_Israelis


I can find no evidence that any Israeli spies were rounded up and deported after 9/11.


Gong!

For starters, Zakheim was not appointed until 2001, and the "missing" $2.3 trillion was all "missing" before he got there. It was in fact his first assignment to track down the accounting problems that had failed to account for that spending.

But more importantly, the money was were never actually missing. It was just improperly accounted for

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Missing_Trillions

Do you need me to keep going? Or are you starting to get the point?

Now you're just trolling.

That's one possibility. Another is that having experienced the harassment of conspiracist nut-burgers in the past, I choose to avoid inviting more of it.


Ah... there you go again. Your neonazi antisemitic slip is showing. So many wild conspiracy theories are ultimately fueled by racist hatred. But you are worse than most at keeping your bigoted kimono closed.


Be honest. That was always your bigoted belief even before you engaged in your first debate. Prejudice requires no real confirmation.


I have found many of them to be the most despicable human beings on the planet, capable of the most scurrilous abuse of my family members, my friends and myself. So yes... I am afraid of them to the same extent nd exactly the same way I am afraid of stepping in dog shit.


My personal experience has proved that claim to be a lie.

Again... if I was granted the same latitude to make up details, fabricate "connections," and declare anything bizarre or coincidental even when it's not the slightest bit bizarre or coincidental, yes. Everyone does.

Here's how you do it:

1. List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton's mother's chiropractor.

2. Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or can't contradict with hard evidence.

3. Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."

4. If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.

5. Most important, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...


Occam's Razor can only be applied to reality, not fiction. Applied to the "Clinton Corpse List" Occam's Razor should tell you that there is no way anybody could actually murder so many people and still be running for President.

And yet... she is.

There appears to be a hole in your theory.

Every fact you have argued turned out to be false. That is why you keep running away to hide behind flaccid testimony from unqualified "experts."


I have proved with photographs that every factual claim you have made was false. Your response was to call them "fake."

You can't accuse me of providing no facts and providing fake facts at the same time. Make up your mind.


You have not even begun to pump fake the most trivial basis to make that claim.


And that's called arguing in a vicious circle. You reject the evidence because you have already declared 9/11 an inside job. You declare 9/11 an inside job because you reject the evidence that it was not. I know seven year-olds with stronger critical thinking skills than that.


Like I would trust a 9/11 Truther with my name.


Yes. That was deliberate.


It was never a magazine, but rather than dissolved, it has been folded into the Committee for Scientific Inquiry (CSI) the national organization.


No. It doesn't mention any of us. There were seven.


Nope. But he makes a killer martini.

And yet... for most of history and a large percentage of people living today, there was not only no access to these "rights," there wasn't even an awareness that they existed.

What does it say about the competence of any God that would give people rights, and forget to tell them for a full 90% of their existence?


I hate to break the news to you... but it was the political left that actually invented the concept of human rights. They arose in the secularizing ferment of The Enlightenment, and were only embraceable by rejecting the rigid hierarchies and orthodoxies of Christian Europe.

As we liberals like to say, "You're welcome."


Well, since as a general rule you are simply wrong about whether or not leftists recognize God, the rest of that silly chain of unreasoning can be dismissed out of hand.

As to "dictators," they come from both the right and the left. Right wing dictators are called fascists. Left wing dictators are usually called Marxists. Both sides of the spectrum share a tendency towards tyranny.


Assumes facts not in evidence.

Clearly. It certainly takes some intellectual firepower to spell "certainly." I can assure you of that.

The video shows no "politicking." It shows him shaking hands with two poll workers.


I would argue that there were no loopholes to slither through. All he had to do was not break the law.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Actually, yeah, it does.

And court decisions are not just something "available on the Internet." They are binding legal precedent, actually available directly from the court.

Really.


Use your words. I think you're confabulating your "its" there.


Hard to tell. Your comment was about as clear as mud.


Could be. I come from a very large family.


It's one thing to have an open mind. It's another to let your brains fall out on the floor.


Okay... everything in your post was fiction. There is no need to provide evidence to refute it, since no evidence exists for it in the first place. Every time those silly claims have been attempted in a court of law, they have failed. That alone poves them to be stupid.