Smut for Smut

[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.