What really happened ....11 september

[ratboy88]

Quote from neophyte321:



As for insider trading, a lack of insider trading activity would have been a far better indicator of a conspiracy. Have YOU NUTJOBS failed to consider that Al Qaeda and all its supporters, and it has many, might have taken advantage of such a ripe situation?!

Finally, when I was told that the first plane hit one of the towers, that very first thing that popped into my head was "BIN LADEN!". EVERYONE KNEW THEY WERE TARGETING THE WTC.

they keep crapping in bowls and people like neophyte want bigger spoons.

if the "insider trading" had led back to "bin laden" that would have been all over the media.. and rightfully so. so where did it lead to??? try ex-cia, buzzy krongard's firm... . trust me they know exactly where that money trail led to..... try and get the records from bloomberg for that day. good luck.

 

[man]

Quote from Bitstream:

for what concerns investigating/fighting u know it's a non-starter. companies would have to square against the govt and besides that there's a serious taboo everywhere about questioning anything about 911, they prolly would have more to lose then to gain.

to square against THAT government and win the case
would save them 4 billion. convincing. i mean you can
hardly dismiss each argument by taking the conspiracy
to a further level. now it is not only the guys who did
the action plus the government, but private companies
like insurers as well. at some time this loses all credibility
unless you suffer from a very deeply rooted paranoia
in the first place.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from man:

to square against THAT government and win the case
would save them 4 billion. convincing. i mean you can
hardly dismiss each argument by taking the conspiracy
to a further level. now it is not only the guys who did
the action plus the government, but private companies
like insurers as well. at some time this loses all credibility
unless you suffer from a very deeply rooted paranoia
in the first place.

man??? you are obviously sincere but so naive. you thought "the onion" was a legit media source.

 

[man]

dpt

what do you think about jones? paranoid? misguided?
bad science? naive?

 

[Bitstream]

Quote from man:

to square against THAT government and win the case
would save them 4 billion. convincing. i mean you can
hardly dismiss each argument by taking the conspiracy
to a further level. now it is not only the guys who did
the action plus the government, but private companies
like insurers as well. at some time this loses all credibility
unless you suffer from a very deeply rooted paranoia
in the first place.

omfg, u just dont understand, i never implied insurance companies were involved, quite the opposite. just that the fact that none of them took a a serious look at the consequences for their biz of buildings falling apart that easly, and that's because they all probably think it wont happen ever again.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from Bitstream:

what's so funny....unlike u i am after the truth not any conceivable way and rationalizations to back the claims it was not an inside job.

It's funny that you are FINALLY using your noggin a little bit, and not swallowing all the garbage from the CTers. Glad to see that you're finally wiseing up.

Good, so keep looking for the truth. If you are indeed openminded, you'll see that the CT thing has no end to it - like Man said above, one coverup leads to another, and then another, and then another, until it gets so complex that it loses all credibility, unless your opinion is rooted in deep seated paranoia.....

 

[man]

Quote from ratboy88:

man??? you are obviously sincere but so naive. you thought "the onion" was a legit media source.

don't get you. why am i naive and what is the onion?

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Haroki:

It's funny that you are FINALLY using your noggin a little bit, and not swallowing all the garbage from the CTers. Glad to see that you're finally wiseing up.

Good, so keep looking for the truth. If you are indeed openminded, you'll see that the CT thing has no end to it - like Man said above, one coverup leads to another, and then another, and then another, until it gets so complex that it loses all credibility, unless your opinion is rooted in deep seated paranoia.....

at least we dont hang on to pancake theories that everyone has embarrassingly backed away from. have you finally found a replacement theory? or shall we order a new stack of flap jacks for you?

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from man:

don't get you. why am i naive and what is the onion?

use the search button..... i rest my case.

edit... here you go:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1302460&highlight=the+onion#post1302460

 

[man]

Quote from Bitstream:

... i never implied insurance companies were involved, quite the opposite. just that the fact that none of them took a a serious look at the consequences for their biz of buildings falling apart that easly, and that's because they all probably think it wont happen ever again.

hm. if they "probably think it won't happen ever again"
it is equivalent to them claiming the official story is not
true. because the only way to hold up such thinking is
that buildings of that kind cannot be brought down by
cirumstances that stem from fire alone plus some other
circumstances (bulding 7).

i guess these people's business is exactly to take "a
serious look" at whether their compensation for taking
over risk is sufficient.

my thinking: if they believe the official story, they must
raise their rates. or they alreday knew the structural
weakness of the buildings anyway inadvance.

btw dpt will argue that the two towers were unique
- and he is probably right.