From wiki:
**Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
**
What Cisco and every other poster wants from you is an actual theory of what you think happened supported by some train of thought backing it up. You’ve already thrown a number of things on the wall and so far nothing as stuck.
and before I forget, you cited a reference to Larry Silverstein making an insurance killing as one of the conspiracies behind 9/11. Per your own cite, he doesn not own the WTC buildings. They belong to the Port Authority. He leases them and then makes money subleasing individual offices. He is still paying $102 million dollars a year in lease payments to the Port Authority. At 9% return on investment he’s losing $307,500,000 annually in lost opportunity costs and this will be fully realized in 11 years against the insurance payout. The building will take 12 years before tenants can move in.
“It’s a write-off for them.”
“How is it a write-off?”
“They just write it off.”
“Write it off what?”
“Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.”
“You don’t even know what a write-off is.”
“Do you?”
“No, I don’t.”
“But they do. And they’re the ones writing it off.”
“I wish I had the last twenty seconds of my life back.”
- Kramer and Jerry, in “The Package”
Which he would never even see becuase, as noted in the cite, the payout is being used for rebuilding. Which costs more than double the payout amount and rising.
Clearly, Larry Silverstein realized that if he destroyed just the WTC, everyone would look at him as a suspect*, so he had the Pentagon attacked as well to throw everyone off. (I assume he was inspired by Agatha Christie’s “The A.B.C. Murders” in which the killer perpetrates a string of alphabet-inspired killings to hide his/her victim among.)
*After all, he gets to lose millions of dollars and thus has a strong financial incentive!
Don’t forget: It’s PROVEN FACT that all the Jews (except for a few sacrificial lambs) were ORDERED to leave the Twin Towers upon SECRET instructions from MOSSAD.
There is no evidence whatsoever concerning the actual “target” of the last plane.
There is no actual provable evidence of the “let’s roll” scenario either, but it makes for an inspiring story. Good thing the guy didn’t say “Let’s get those towel headed MF’ers”, it would not have looked good on a Christian’s bumpersticker.
Other than the testimony of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the thing. (I know his testimony is compromised by torture.) But even if you disregard that, a target in Washington DC is logical.
Other than the phone calls. And really, this is not relevant to the collapse issue or to your implications about Silverstein and so on, so I’d prefer you address those.
NO. He is saying that science relies on the concept of falsifiability: if you make a claim that cannot theoretically be proved false, then what you are saying is not scientific. For example, if I said I thought the towers were brought down by an earthquake, that would be falsifiable: we could look at seismic records and see if an earthquake hit New York City at that time, for starters.
So now the last target is a “logical ASSUMPTION”. Nice. And I don’t believe any cell phone calls were actually made from a plane going 600 mph at 37,000 ft, which would have been quite a trick in 2001.
Why was he powerless? (This at least implies he was aware of a conspiracy.)
Address the issue about planning the training drills, please. You clearly said someone did that to get the military out of the way. And this comment implies somebody wanted to hit the Pentagon but didn’t want to do too much damage - which again implicates the military.
This is a lazy excuse that allows you to explain away logical inconsistencies and nonsense.
