Smut for Smut

[fr0d0]

It's a bit like the search for God innit? But the God was never meant to be found...

[Pippy]

Please allow me to respond to Tav and SAE, but sorry for Thor I don't have enough time to get that far tonight. I will be back in the morning.

Larry, on the other hand, lost millions from the building's collapse, as he had to rebuild, essentially out of pocket.

I don't know where you get your information Tav, but he had to pay out of his own pocket? Are you serious? Poor Larry, are you forgetting that he was the recipient of the largest insurance settlement in the history of insurance settlements?
"The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silve...ce_dispute

So a single bit of false information is somehow proof that the whole thing was a lie?

Noooo, but a single bit of false information (with intent, disinformation, lies) would vindicate my point that we are being lied to about 9/11. If there is one lie, than we are being lied to ,are we not? That;s why I have made a claim that cannot be false. Somewhere someone has to be telling at least one little white lie about that day. That is my only claim, I make no assertions about anything else about 9/11 other than the fact that there are lies.

Again, as I explained above, the attack was unprecedented.

Was it?
http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html
Here is a very long list of times aircraft were hijacked and used as weapons, or times when their is a paper trail of people expecting others to hijack and use aircraft as weapons. There was a famous paper in '72, I forget the name, where America considered hijacking a jet and faking flying it over Cuba and blowing it up, pretending Americans had died so they could invade. They knew about the hijacking planes idea long, long ago...

They simply couldn't act because there was no precedent for it.The planes are also on alert for something akin to enemy bombers, not a goddamn commercial airliner being used as a missile.

Except for the part where they knew about the possibility of hijacked domestic airliners as missile weapons. And if they did not, they are neglectful for not knowing an obvious threat.

Are you insane? This isn't a rhetorical question. This sounds absolutely nuts.

Oh, it was Hal Turner.
“Hate blogger” Hal Turner’s lawyer said last week, and prosecutors agreed, that Turner was “trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative” and “worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and was taught by the agency ‘what he could say that wouldn’t be crossing the line.’”
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/lynching-o...id-by-fbi/

And for the PNAC quote you asked about:
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for..._Harbor.22

That's all the time we have tonight folks. These are easy links to find, instead of name claling try googling things, you just may learn something, or come up with a better rebut.

Sorry I couldn't get to you SAE or Thor, only so many minutes in the day.

Thanks,
-Pip

[tavarish]

I don't know where you get your information Tav, but he had to pay out of his own pocket? Are you serious? Poor Larry, are you forgetting that he was the recipient of the largest insurance settlement in the history of insurance settlements?
"The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silve...ce_dispute

You sure showed me up. I wonder how my feeble brain with cope with this gem of an argument.

http://www.realestatejournal.com/regiona...rkman.html

Thus far, Ground Zero planning has been driven by Mr. Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority, which requires him to "restore" 10 million square feet of office space and make lease payments of $120 million a year. The office space was to come in the form of five skyscrapers that Mr. Silverstein promised to complete for the site by 2013. The buildings, plus related infrastructure are estimated to cost more than $9 billion. Of the total potential insurance payout, $1.3 billion has already been spent on lawyers fees, financing buyouts, and Mr. Silverstein's fees and the return of his equity.

This disaster has nearly bankrupted him and forced him to renegotiate his lease on the WTC site.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/03/larry-s...a-bailout/

Do a bit more than some wikipedia link and follow up on your claim. Yes, he was awarded money, but nowhere near enough to make a profit. His wallet was a hell of a lot lighter after 9/11.

Noooo, but a single bit of false information (with intent, disinformation, lies) would vindicate my point that we are being lied to about 9/11. If there is one lie, than we are being lied to ,are we not? That;s why I have made a claim that cannot be false. Somewhere someone has to be telling at least one little white lie about that day. That is my only claim, I make no assertions about anything else about 9/11 other than the fact that there are lies.

You have made a claim that has not been backed up with anything. You assume we are being lied to, and then proclaim it cannot be any other way.

Provide evidence, like I've asked you before. I can say the sky is falling all I want, but it doesn't mean anything if I can't present my case with evidence.

Was it?
http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html
Here is a very long list of times aircraft were hijacked and used as weapons, or times when their is a paper trail of people expecting others to hijack and use aircraft as weapons. There was a famous paper in '72, I forget the name, where America considered hijacking a jet and faking flying it over Cuba and blowing it up, pretending Americans had died so they could invade. They knew about the hijacking planes idea long, long ago...

First of all, that paper had zero references for any of his paper trail.

Second, none of it said anything about turning the transponders off and hijacking multiple planes simultaneously. It also makes the same loose associations as most conspiracy theorists make, like:

• March 2001 – Fox’s show The Lone Gunmen depicts an attack by terrorists using a remote-controlled 727 aircraft against the World Trade Center (the real attackers turn out to be US government agents who want to justify continued, large military budgets by creating fear of terrorism).

...Fox was in on it? LOL

And provides zero actual evidence for their case. His paper actually makes more sense as an expose of the lax airport security before 9/11, and not some kind of uncovering of government practices. Without references, like a real compilation article would have, his words are meaningless.

Except for the part where they knew about the possibility of hijacked domestic airliners as missile weapons. And if they did not, they are neglectful for not knowing an obvious threat.

Again, they can't win. Either they're negligent or they're in on it. You're showing your true colors with this subject.

Would it be possible that this caught the nation's defenses by surprise and took place within an hour, our government being alerted only after half the planes hit their targets? You have unrealistic expectations of what is possible. They grounded all planes that day, there was a GIANT mess. One plane out of place, especially with the transponder turned off, would be hard to find.

Oh, it was Hal Turner.
“Hate blogger” Hal Turner’s lawyer said last week, and prosecutors agreed, that Turner was “trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative” and “worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and was taught by the agency ‘what he could say that wouldn’t be crossing the line.’”
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/lynching-o...id-by-fbi/

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Was he being paid by the FBI to obfuscate 9/11 conspiracies?

And for the PNAC quote you asked about:
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for..._Harbor.22

How is this proof that the government is lying about what happened on 9/11? All this addresses is a possibility of pursuing other interests afterwards. By the way, most of the articles in the references are from heavily biased, CT-friendly sources. It doesn't make them necessarily wrong, but it doesn't work for their credibility.

That's all the time we have tonight folks. These are easy links to find, instead of name claling try googling things, you just may learn something, or come up with a better rebut.

No sweat at all. Try to make relevant points to the subject material, and make sure the things you post are the entire story, not just one facet of it. Again, if you're willing to provide evidence that will hold up in a court of law or a respected, peer reviewed scientific journal, please present it. So far, you've claimed that we've been lied to about 9/11 and haven't backed it up with anything of relevance.

New Pearl Harbor doesn't demonstrate that we are being lied to about what happened on 9/11.
A guy claiming to have been paid by FBI doesn't demonstrate that we are being lied to about what happened on 9/11.
Lockheed Martin making money from jet contracts doesn't demonstrate that we are being lied to about what happened on 9/11.

Evidence, please.

If you're going to claim an organization is lying, especially when it has to do with the murder of 3,000 people, it would be nice if it was, you know, justified with something more than a distrustful hunch.

[Pippy]

I once was blind but now I see. I was wrong about my country, America would never hurt it's own people to further an agenda.

[tavarish]

I once was blind but now I see. I was wrong about my country, America would never hurt it's own people to further an agenda.

So I'm guessing that's a no on the evidence to back up your claims.

It figures.

[Thor]

I once was blind but now I see. I was wrong about my country, America would never hurt it's own people to further an agenda.

This is a red herring. We are arguing with you about a specific event. You claim that the govenment was, at the least, negligent, and at the most, complicit in the attacks of 9/11. You have no evidence to back this up. Now you want to divert our attention from this fact by tossing out a sweeping statement about "America" hurting its own people to further an agenda.

Get back to the original argument. Either admit you have nothing to back up your absurd claims, or produce some evidence.

[Pippy]

I have nothing to back up my absurd claims.

I do it for the lulz.

Thank you,
-Pip

[Falhalterra]

When I first saw the "Smut for Smut" campaign on Youtube, my thoughts were: "Well, there's sex and incest in the Bible. Seems more or less Pornography is the better one in this situation."

Still my thoughts now.

[Thor]

I have nothing to back up my absurd claims.

Glad to see you admit it!

[Violet]

It's a bit like the search for God innit? But the God was never meant to be found...

Which is good I think, as I've never found him

---

When I first saw the "Smut for Smut" campaign on Youtube, my thoughts were: "Well, there's sex and incest in the Bible. Seems more or less Pornography is the better one in this situation."

Still my thoughts now.

My goodness... is that what was at the beginning of this thread? 0.o

*checks*

hock:

What a remarkable evolution for the tread to have gone through... 0.o How'd we get from a porn-for-bibles campaign to 9/11 conspiracy theories? 0.o

*/endrhetoric*