• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it now time to remove the 9/11 Conspiracy sub-forum from JREF?

Oystein said:
The fact remains that you have never done the sums for Silversteins profits and losses because of 9/11 (or to be more precise: How these changed due to 9/11 and the aftermath, as compared to what they would have been without the mayhem). You never tallied ALL the factor that need to go in that calculation (such as loss of business), and never backed up all the numbers that you did use (for example that he was or will actually be payed out the maximum insurance sums).
Click to expand...

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that the question of whether or not Silverstein is required to rebuild should, to a first approximation, be completely irrelevant to the profit and loss calculation. If he is required to rebuild, then after bearing the cost he will have an asset of similar value to the assets that were destroyed. If he isn't, then he's lost the value of those assets, which negates the benefit of the money he received in insurance. Insurance fraud can only be profitable when an asset is overvalued for insurance purposes, and it's universally understood that the ceiling on insurance payouts for the WTC undervalued them by at least a factor of two.

Dave
 
dafydd said:
Java Man still has to present his draft and CE might decide to unveil the 'working hypothesis'. Many chuckles to come,let's keep it going for a while.
Click to expand...

Java Man promised a theory in a few days and is now six months overdue, so I doubt it's coming any time soon, we might have to leave the forum open for another 50 years. ;)

Ergo still hasn't resolved the into/onto issue yet either, maybe we'll get lucky and he'll give it a go one more time.
 
Nice experiment! In my experience I haven't been so lucky - I was at UBC and saw a poster advertising Niels Harrit giving a lecture about nanothermite. That annoyed me, since I couldn't go and heckle him...

Also I've seen Jesse Ventura spewing his clever patter a few times, and he's (IMO) the current King of the Conspiracists.

All the same I've been away from it for weeks at a time, except I do respond to comments on my youtube videos and I am also responsible for approving comments on a few of 'em.

I figure so long as people are going to challenge the basic facts of 9/11, someone is going to have to respond to the challenge and either set 'em straight or smack 'em down.

The best thing, IMO, is for forums like this one to exist to educate and prepare interested parties for battle, so to speak, and also for forums like this one to act as a centerpiece for the myriad internet sources debunking the myths of 9/11 Truth.

Will I be involved in this in years to come? Who knows? But I hope someone will be, and I hope they have even better access to info than I've had in my short time of involvement.
 
RedIbis said:
It was Oystein who claimed LS was on the hook for the rebuilding of the WTC, not me.
Click to expand...

You've slandered enough people with no evidence. Larry is just one of them.

One of the mnost cowardly posting histories in this sub forum.
 
Allow me to answer the question proposed in the thread title with a resounding HELL YES!

This is what the truthers have reduced themselves to. Semantic hair-splitting over the difference between "on to" and "in to".

I've in the past argued that this forum was a "containment vessel". It kept the twoofers from crapping on the sidewalk in the rest of the forums. But they lost. It's over, and they know it. The need for containment isn't as great as it once was.

I propose locking every thread in 9/11CT, locking the forum itself from new threads (while keeping the archive around for posteritys sake) and creating a single thread in the general CT forum.
 
And I agree the forum could be closed. Most of the threads are nonsense or attack threads started by bedunkers who obsessively follow every development in the truth movement.

There is very little left to discuss here except the facts. These can be discussed in the science and math forum or the political forums.
 
RedIbis said:
You don't understand the definition of slander.
Click to expand...

A better way to put it would be libel actually which is a written statement damaging to a party's reputation that is false, misleading, or baseless. Unfortunately speaking in a civil tone doesn't mitigate the damaging effects that such statements can have. If you took that kind of accusation to a courtroom the judge can either throw out the case or penalize the plaintiff making the accusations; it can be that serious sometimes.
 
Last edited:
We who are skeptical of the Official Conspiracy theory (OCT) will be happy ro take over this subforum after the deperture of the government supporters. We are all skeptics of one kind or another after all. So it will still be a skeptics forum on the same sublest and should not be shut down just because the angle has changed.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
We who are skeptical of the Official Conspiracy theory (OCT) will be happy ro take over this subforum after the deperture of the government supporters.
Click to expand...

How are you going to take over a forum that you don't own or administrate and has been shut down?
 
I'm fairly new here so this sub-forum hasn't nearly run it's course as far as I'm concerned (obviously), but like anything else I suppose, the regulars will get bored. Either way, I'm hoping it doesn't get removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom