And if you could read, you would have noticed that I didn’t ask you what you knew-I asked you for your opinion.
He’s not asking what you know. He’s asking what you think. As in what’s your theory.
If we accept your premises, the fact that you’ve given both humans peanut butter has been conclusively proven.
I read your post. You made a point to insinuate that you think Bush and Larry Silverstien had something to do with it. “Just saying”.
Unless you were just throwing non-sequiters out, on the assumption that making random noise would make you look smarter somehow.
And I dare you to tell us that you haven’t formed any opinions on the matter.
Actually, he’s asking him what his *hypothesis *is. You need evidence for a theory.
I think that Silverstien was involved. I do NOT think OBL had much, if anything to do with it. If he had, we’d have gotten him. I DO NOT think our government planned or carried out the “attacks”. I don’t even really think they “allowed” them, though Bush’s reaction in the Florida classroom is curious if not frightening.
Like I said. I don’t need to know what the square root of two actually is, to know for certain it ISN’T five.
What I am CERTAIN of, is that the government lied to us about what REALLY took place, WHO was responsible and WHY. The explainations just don’t fit the facts.
The devil is in the details, just like the Kennedy assasinantion. They got it about 90% covered, and as for the other 10% they just ridicule and shout down anyone who asks questions. They know they have enough people who buy everything they say to help them out.
But… we know who was responsible. The hijackers. Al Qaeda. They even took credit, remember? Even when we started bombing the shit out of them, they didn’t say “Yo, man, it wasn’t us! We were just kidding with all that OBL video nonsense!”
How can you be CERTAIN if you have no proof? 
The fact that you’re confused about all this is not proof of anything, other than your confusion.
I guess so, if you want to stick to the scientific definition. I didn’t realize this thread was up for peer review. In common parlance, “what do you think happened?” is pretty much the same as “what’s your theory of what happened?”
Hey, hey. The jab wasn’t aimed at you.
Again, I don’t have to know every correct answer to know the one I’m being given is wrong.
How do you think Silverstien’s plan worked? Which of the following do you hypothesize were involved/hired/used:
- muslim hijackers
- black ops demolition agents
- airplanes
- bombs
- missiles
- thermite
- fire
- gravity
- other
And what do you hypothesize was the purpose of attacking the pentagon, and was there any possibility that the government allowed that attack?
Evidence? Or should we simply take your unsupported word for this?
-XT
He got alot less than he wanted or expected.
Now let the spin continue…
That shows what he got for insurance…it doesn’t show what his losses were, either capital or recurring. Want to try again? Or do you want to ‘spin’ it such that only black ink counts?
-XT
A maximum insurance payout of $4.5 billion, earmarked toward the $7 billion+ rebuild cost, and continuing to pay $102 million per annum for empty land is “fine”?
Where does it say what he expected? Doesn’t every business man try to get as much as they can from an insurance settlement? Where is the evidence in that article that he had the buildings over-insured?
It says it here in the linked Wiki:
My emphasis. The trouble with this cite is it shows what his claim was, without giving any details as to what his losses were, both capital and recurring (not to mention rebuild costs).
Essentially, Mozart1220 is talking out of his or her ass on this one. $4.55 billion seems like a killing…until you realize what the original buildings cost, what the cleanup and capital losses were, and what the rents were (that aren’t being paid anymore), plus what it would cost to rebuild (which you’d need to do before you start getting those juicy rents again).
-XT
Which “facts and evidence” don’t match what “explanations”? I have linked to pictures which show your “facts” to be patently wrong, ((i.e., “The fires were barely burning a few minutes after the impacts.”, post 103), imho, the sort of mistake one should be embarrased to make), as has other posters re: other “facts” (the tops of the buildings should have slid off the bottom, sort of like an ice cream cone being held by a five year-old) which have been soundly debunked.
Now you claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that Silverstein had something to do with this… when asked for evidence, you ignore these requests with some pithy comment that you’re not confused.
I beg to differ.
You started on one subject (fires) and when you got absolutely no traction on that idea (because anybody who Googles for images of the WTC disaster can immediately see that you’re wrong), you then start with another (the tops should have slid off) and when that is put to rest, you start on a third (Silverstein made billion$), which is a direct contradiction of your statement “If I knew who did it, I wouldn’t have questions.” If you don’t “know” who did it, why are you implicating Silverstein?
:rolleyes:
ETA: Now it looks as if you are basing all this Silverstein stuff on the fact that he disputes the insurance settlement. Are you serious? Have you never disputed an insurance settlement, or heard of such a thing?