"He's a stupid old man... speaking from the cuff... .thinking that the story that they told us would never be in question... so there was no need to consider his words would be analyzed or questioned either." --JJames on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:38pm.
That "stupid old man" who has no idea how to speak English just made the greatest business deal in the history of mankind (in his favor)--
"Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [7]." ... "In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [13]." -Wikipedia, Larry Silverstein
Yeah, what a doofus. I'm surprised he can tie his own shoes. THAT's a valid argument.
"to me, he made it sound like the decision to pull and the building collapsing are successive events. He certainly does not mention "later on" or similar." --911veritas on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:24pm.
Okay, then:
'We watched the devastation of 9/11, then we saw the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.'
This must mean the two events happened on the same afternoon, in the same hour! Think, people.
"It's obvious what johndoraemi's agenda is here. No matter what the evidence is, or how many times johnjoraemi is proven wrong, he continues to try to engage everyone in endless debate [Heaven forbid you had to actually think!], repeating the same tired arguments over and over and over again. --Keenan on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 3:52am.
Has yet to prove a word I said "wrong." The paranoia is very attractive, though.
"Who the FECK do you think you are?
There are witnesses on record saying that members of the FDNY told them that they were going to bring the building down." --stallion4 on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:54am
This one refuses to even attempt to substantiate his claims until I cede editorial control of my website! You wonder if these are mainly junior high schoolers. It sounds like hearsay, gossip, anyway (inadmissable in court). Note how I am not supposed to question the dogma at all, "Who the FECK do you think you are?"
This is in spite of a long list of reasons to doubt the "truther's" interpretation of that comment:
1. NYFD doesn't blow up buildings.
2. "contain the fire" indicates firefighting operation was ongoing at the time of the call, making it plausible that the purpose was to "pull the operation."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
