The Magic Bullet in the JFK Assassination

[claviger]

dyingwords.net


JFK Assassination | Dying Words
Apr 23, 2016 - United States President John F. Kennedy suffered two
gunshot wounds during ... It had to be planted, conspiracy theorists tell
you—set up to frame Lee ... He was laid on a different stretcher,
taken to another part of the ER where, ..... Here are links to credible
sites with information on the Single Bullet Theory:.
http://dyingwords.net/category/jfk-assassination/#sthash.o6f0nOPK.dpbs

[Robert Harris]

Claviger, why do you always go for the easy stuff?

Why don't you EVER want to talk about the consensus of the
witnesses about the shots, the analyses of the top
physicists, the visible, simultaneous reactions to the shots?

Why won't you talk about CE399 and why it bears neither of
the initials carved into the original Tomlinson bullet by
agents Johnsen and Todd?

Why won't you talk about the fact that the actual bullet that
wounded Connally and probably JFK, was retrieved by a nurse
after it fell from Connally's gurney - as confirmed by
Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan and nursing supervisor
Audrey Bell?

Were you thinking none of that was important?

Or is it possible that you ONLY defend the LN theory against
the WORST of the arguments put forward by some conspiracy
advocates, because that's the ONLY stuff you can refute?

It doesn't matter whether the SBT was true or not. WHAT
MATTERS IS WHETHER THIS WAS A CONSPIRACY.





Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

The 'single bullet theory' has ben shown to be false. It never
happened.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:20:11 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:

I wasn't aware that as many as 42% of the American people believe the 9/11
attacks were orchestrated by the US Government. With that many stupid
people in this country, is there little wonder why so many have bought
into the various JFK assassination conspiracies. It even helps explain why
we could come up with no better viable candidates for President than
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

As H.L. Mencken once observed, "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American people in culture. People can easily be
persuaded to accept the most inferior ideas or useless products.". It's
kind of a corollary to a statement wrongly attribute to Lincoln that says
"You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people
all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.".
The third part of that is the reason we have LNs.

[mainframetech]

Oh? Are the LNs there to try and uphold the government view of things?
9/11 was certainly a plot, based on the evidence. But I believe in the
Moon landing.

Chris

[bigdog]

Of course the 9/11 attacks were a plot. 19 Islamic terrorists didn't
spontaneously decide to crash four airplanes on the spur of the moment.
There is no evidence anyone in the government took part in the plot or had
prior knowledge of it. But as it is with the JFK assassination, evidence
isn't required to dream up convoluted tales of massive conspiracies.
That's nice you believe we really did land on the moon. Are we supposed to
be impressed by that?

[claviger]

What evidence? You consider your own thoughts, impressions, and guesswork
as evidence. The rest of us need real facts confirmed by forensic science
and corroboration by real witnesses. Your opinions are not evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

See, you believe in conspiracies too.
But when I said the same thing you called me a kook.
How come you didn't claim it was just an accident? Like Watergate?

> There is no evidence anyone in the government took part in the plot or had
> prior knowledge of it. But as it is with the JFK assassination, evidence

Exactly. I think the word you need to learn is call Malfeasance.
Condi to Bush: bin Laden determined to strike in the US.
Bush to Condi: So what?

[mainframetech]

Do you realize you just spouted a bunch of opinions?

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Don't be ridiculous! I wasn't part of the team that did it.
There is no doubt that there was planning for the 9/11 catastrophe.
However, it wasn't a government project. They may have helped because
they got some benefit out of it, but one of the main characters was Larry
Silverstein. Silverstein bought the WTC property 6 months before the
collapse of the 3 towers. It was considered odd that he bought it, since
it was in deep trouble for remediation of asbestos which was all
throughout all the buildings. NYC had been after them and was getting fed
up with the delays in fixing the problem. The trouble with that was that
the removal of asbestos would cost more than the buildings had originally
cost to build! In the billions. When the 3 towers collapsed after what
seemed to be terrorist activity, Silverstein was paid DOUBLE for the
collapse. Go here:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html

The collapse of the 3 towers got rid of the asbestos...all over NYC
which gave many people lung problems, first responders were the worst.
The demolition was taken care of, and Silverstein had a nice NYC property
to build the new WTC on. It worked out wonderfully for him. There were
many clues that pointed to the collapse being intentional, which I won't
bore you with at this point. The government were able to destroy many
documents that were an embarrassment, and they also covered up an
extremely important Defense dept. loss ($2.3 Trillion announced on 9/10)
which got lost in the 9/11 events.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The word is Criminal Malfeasance. Like the city not fixing the sinkhole
that 4,000 people have fallen into and died.

> they got some benefit out of it, but one of the main characters was Larry
> Silverstein. Silverstein bought the WTC property 6 months before the
> collapse of the 3 towers. It was considered odd that he bought it, since
> it was in deep trouble for remediation of asbestos which was all

Not odd in that type of business.

> throughout all the buildings. NYC had been after them and was getting fed
> up with the delays in fixing the problem. The trouble with that was that
> the removal of asbestos would cost more than the buildings had originally
> cost to build! In the billions. When the 3 towers collapsed after what
> seemed to be terrorist activity, Silverstein was paid DOUBLE for the
> collapse. Go here:
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
>
> The collapse of the 3 towers got rid of the asbestos...all over NYC
> which gave many people lung problems, first responders were the worst.
> The demolition was taken care of, and Silverstein had a nice NYC property
> to build the new WTC on. It worked out wonderfully for him. There were

Sometimes people do profit from a tragedy, but you seriously can't think
that Silverstein planned the hijacking over a year earlier and recruited
al Qaeda just for the insurance money. That's insane.

[bigdog]

If the government helped out the terrorists than it would have been a
government project. Do you think the terrorists planned the attack and
then went to people in our government and asked them if they would go
along with it. Since you seem to think the same thing happened with the
JFK assassination, you probably would believe that.

> Silverstein bought the WTC property 6 months before the
> collapse of the 3 towers. It was considered odd that he bought it, since
> it was in deep trouble for remediation of asbestos which was all
> throughout all the buildings. NYC had been after them and was getting fed
> up with the delays in fixing the problem. The trouble with that was that
> the removal of asbestos would cost more than the buildings had originally
> cost to build! In the billions. When the 3 towers collapsed after what
> seemed to be terrorist activity, Silverstein was paid DOUBLE for the
> collapse. Go here:
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
>
> The collapse of the 3 towers got rid of the asbestos...all over NYC
> which gave many people lung problems, first responders were the worst.
> The demolition was taken care of, and Silverstein had a nice NYC property
> to build the new WTC on. It worked out wonderfully for him. There were
> many clues that pointed to the collapse being intentional, which I won't
> bore you with at this point. The government were able to destroy many
> documents that were an embarrassment, and they also covered up an
> extremely important Defense dept. loss ($2.3 Trillion announced on 9/10)
> which got lost in the 9/11 events.
>

That's nice. Now where is your evidence that Silverstein took part in the destruction of the Twin Towers?

Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
real evidence.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You're getting off the reservation again. Get a grip.
However, there would be individuals in the government that would benefit
greatly if the 3 towers collapsed and it was blamed on terrorists. So we
might consider that some government people independently helped to set it
up, or helped to cover it up later.

First, there was the cover up of the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that the
dept. of Defense lost which Rumsfeld announced on 9/10. There was no time
spent on it, after 9/11.

Second, there were a number of government offices in the WTC towers
that held important documents that it would be better if they didn't
exist. They were destroyed, and no one thought about the fact of backup
systems and data.
Third, the same thing happened at the Pentagon, where there were
important documents that would implicate a number of people in various
scams, and the exactly correct part of the Pentagon building that housed
those records was hit. As well, the CIA and Secret Service had offices
there and lost some documents.
Fourth, after the event, the government was able to easily pass the
PATRIOT Act allowing many breaks of the constitution in certain cases.
Just by saying a person looked like terrorist, they could be detained,
searched, have their house searched and be held incommunicado forever.
Much latitude was given to police and intelligence services to intrude on
citizens.
Fifth, the bills and other interests of the administration were golden
and they could do no wrong just by mentioning 9/11 in whatever they wanted
to do,.

> > Silverstein bought the WTC property 6 months before the
> > collapse of the 3 towers. It was considered odd that he bought it, since
> > it was in deep trouble for remediation of asbestos which was all
> > throughout all the buildings. NYC had been after them and was getting fed
> > up with the delays in fixing the problem. The trouble with that was that
> > the removal of asbestos would cost more than the buildings had originally
> > cost to build! In the billions. When the 3 towers collapsed after what
> > seemed to be terrorist activity, Silverstein was paid DOUBLE for the
> > collapse. Go here:
> >
> > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
> >
> > The collapse of the 3 towers got rid of the asbestos...all over NYC
> > which gave many people lung problems, first responders were the worst.
> > The demolition was taken care of, and Silverstein had a nice NYC property
> > to build the new WTC on. It worked out wonderfully for him. There were
> > many clues that pointed to the collapse being intentional, which I won't
> > bore you with at this point. The government were able to destroy many
> > documents that were an embarrassment, and they also covered up an
> > extremely important Defense dept. loss ($2.3 Trillion announced on 9/10)
> > which got lost in the 9/11 events.
> >
> That's nice. Now where is your evidence that Silverstein took part in the destruction of the Twin Towers?
>

Here's a video of Silverstein making a mistake speaking about the
collapse of WTC 7, the third tower to collapse without a plane hitting it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

The terms "pull" and "pull it" are used in demolition when bringing
down a building. It started long ago when they actually used cables to
tie to the upper stories of tenements (5-6 stories) and bad bulldozers
pull the building down. Silverstein said that he talked to a "fire
commander" about 'pulling' the building, but there were 2 fire commanders
there that day, and neither of them spoke with Silverstein, so he lied.
They did NOT need to approval of the building owner to bring a building
down if they thought it would save lives or help the situation.

As well, all personnel in the building left it by 11:00am, yet
Silverstein talked about saving lives of personnel who were in the
building. He also made it clear that his talk with the 'fire commander'
proved that he or the 'fire commander' caused the order to be given to
'pull' the building, so it was NOT any debris or other reason that the
building came down. At many later times, activists tried to ask
Silverstein questions when he was going somewhere to speak, and he wither
ignored them or had them thrown out of whatever place he was at.

Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.

> Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> real evidence.

WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
himself from his own statements.

Chris

[bigdog]

How ironic you would launch into a diatribe like this right after telling
me I was off the reservation.

Given the things you have presented as evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination, it comes as no surprise you would offer something this lame
as evidence in the 9/11 attacks.

> Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
>

Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.

>
>
> > Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> > Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> > Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> > means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> > acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> > destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> > That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> > real evidence.
>
>
> WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> himself from his own statements.
>

You've shown how Silverstein may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.
You have presented nothing which indicates he was involved in the attacks.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/23/2017 10:13 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 1:41:17 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 4:28:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 9:14:59 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 11:16:51 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:52:18 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:20:11 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>> dyingwords.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JFK Assassination | Dying Words
>>>>>>> Apr 23, 2016 - United States President John F. Kennedy suffered two
>>>>>>> gunshot wounds during ... It had to be planted, conspiracy theorists tell

>>>>>>> you???set up to frame Lee ... He was laid on a different stretcher,

Yes, but you misinterpret what he was saying. He did not say pull it
now. He was just giving his permission for the building to be demolished
for public safety reasons.

> As well, all personnel in the building left it by 11:00am, yet
> Silverstein talked about saving lives of personnel who were in the
> building. He also made it clear that his talk with the 'fire commander'

Wrong. The building was a danger to neighboring buildings and people.

> proved that he or the 'fire commander' caused the order to be given to

No. Authorization. Not order. Stop misusing words in English to create
false impressions.

> 'pull' the building, so it was NOT any debris or other reason that the
> building came down. At many later times, activists tried to ask

The building was by then structurally unsound.

> Silverstein questions when he was going somewhere to speak, and he wither
> ignored them or had them thrown out of whatever place he was at.
>
> Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if

Why shouldn't he have insurance? Is that against the law?

> the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
>

Yes, it worked out well for him. That's what insurance did. He did not
burn down his own building. I've seen lots of landlords do that in
Boston for profit. I knew that my building was next on the list and
moved out a month before the arson.

>
>
>> Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
>> Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
>> Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
>> means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
>> acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
>> destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
>> That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
>> real evidence.
>
>
> WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> himself from his own statements.
>

Oh, so you are in charge of telling us the rules of debate? Were you
appointed by UseNet?

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Try and realize that I hold different beliefs than you, and see
the 9/11 catastrophe as a planned controlled demolition. That the murders
of the almost 3,000 people weren't planned and was accidental to a good
degree.

Given your predilection for volunteering to defend the government for
EVERY occasion, no matter what...your lame comments are expected.

> > Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> > before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> > the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> > occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> > and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> > asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
> >
> Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.

There was evidence out of his own mouth, but you would be unfamiliar
with that.

> > > Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> > > Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> > > Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> > > means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> > > acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> > > destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> > > That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> > > real evidence.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> > question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> > himself from his own statements.
> >
>
> You've shown how Silverstein may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.
> You have presented nothing which indicates he was involved in the attacks.

As I just noted, I showed how Silverstein implicated himself from his
own statements. Try and read and listen.

Chris

[bigdog]

That comment is worthy of a big "NO SHIT".

> and see
> the 9/11 catastrophe as a planned controlled demolition. That the murders
> of the almost 3,000 people weren't planned and was accidental to a good
> degree.
>

And you think I am off the reservation. <chuckle>

Right. I always believe what the government tells me. Like when the
government told me if I liked my doctor I could keep him. If I liked my
healthcare plan I could keep it.

>
>
> > > Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> > > before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> > > the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> > > occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> > > and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> > > asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
> > >
> > Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.
>
>
>
> There was evidence out of his own mouth, but you would be unfamiliar
> with that.
>

Oh really? He confessed?

>
>
> > > > Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> > > > Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> > > > Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> > > > means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> > > > acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> > > > destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> > > > That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> > > > real evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> > > question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> > > himself from his own statements.
> > >
> >
> > You've shown how Silverstein may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.
> > You have presented nothing which indicates he was involved in the attacks.
>
>
>
> As I just noted, I showed how Silverstein implicated himself from his
> own statements. Try and read and listen.
>

His statements didn't implicate him. Your spin tried to implicate him. And
it failed.

[mainframetech]

Yep. And if you're interested in why I think that, ask me.

That was believable, as long as you didn't have a bad policy that
couldn't pass muster with the careful terms of Obamacare. If you had one
of the ripoff policies they were scamming folks with, they weren't going
to support it, and whoever the doctors were for that company, you would
find yourself missing them too if they were not up to snuff.

> > > > Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> > > > before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> > > > the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> > > > occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> > > > and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> > > > asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
> > > >
> > > Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.
> >
> >
> >
> > There was evidence out of his own mouth, but you would be unfamiliar
> > with that.
> >
>
> Oh really? He confessed?
>

WRONG! You were given the clip of his lying about the reason for the
collapse of Building 7. And the lies were explained to you as well.
Forgot already?

> >
> >
> > > > > Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> > > > > Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> > > > > Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> > > > > means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> > > > > acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> > > > > destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> > > > > That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> > > > > real evidence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> > > > question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> > > > himself from his own statements.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You've shown how Silverstein may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.
> > > You have presented nothing which indicates he was involved in the attacks.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I just noted, I showed how Silverstein implicated himself from his
> > own statements. Try and read and listen.
> >
>
> His statements didn't implicate him. Your spin tried to implicate him. And
> it failed.

No spin there. But you wouldn't see it anyway, you're only useful for
getting these things out and asking the questions others might ask. It's
known in advance that you would support any government story they put out,
no matter how stupid it was.

Chris

[bigdog]

Why would you think that would interest me?

Funny, I don't remember Obama making any such disclaimers when he made
that statement. In fact was very emphatic. I believe he said "If you like
your doctor you can keep your doctor. PERIOD. If you like your healthcare
plan you can keep your healthcare plan. PERIOD." Sounds pretty unequivocal
to me. And we found out later he was lying his ass off because he knew he
couldn't sell that booger to the American people if he was honest about
it.

>
>
> > > > > Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> > > > > before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> > > > > the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> > > > > occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> > > > > and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> > > > > asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
> > > > >
> > > > Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There was evidence out of his own mouth, but you would be unfamiliar
> > > with that.
> > >
> >
> > Oh really? He confessed?
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You were given the clip of his lying about the reason for the
> collapse of Building 7. And the lies were explained to you as well.
> Forgot already?
>

Why would I buy any of your silly explanations?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> > > > > > Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> > > > > > means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> > > > > > acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> > > > > > destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> > > > > > That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> > > > > > real evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> > > > > question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> > > > > himself from his own statements.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You've shown how Silverstein may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.
> > > > You have presented nothing which indicates he was involved in the attacks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As I just noted, I showed how Silverstein implicated himself from his
> > > own statements. Try and read and listen.
> > >
> >
> > His statements didn't implicate him. Your spin tried to implicate him. And
> > it failed.
>
>
> No spin there. But you wouldn't see it anyway, you're only useful for
> getting these things out and asking the questions others might ask. It's
> known in advance that you would support any government story they put out,
> no matter how stupid it was.
>

Not really. I know the HSCA finding that there was a probable conspiracy
to kill JFK was bullshit.

[mainframetech]

Go back and check what I said. It was "if you're interested". As
usual, you're jumping too soon without thinking it through.

Yep, he was in sales mode. But also he can't be expected to know you
picked a low class bad policy that wasn't any good for you. Obamacare was
to make things better for people, not maintain the bad junk.

> >
> >
> > > > > > Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> > > > > > before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> > > > > > the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> > > > > > occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> > > > > > and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> > > > > > asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was evidence out of his own mouth, but you would be unfamiliar
> > > > with that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh really? He confessed?
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You were given the clip of his lying about the reason for the
> > collapse of Building 7. And the lies were explained to you as well.
> > Forgot already?
> >
>
> Why would I buy any of your silly explanations?
>

WRONG! Well you see, they were couched with proofs. But they would
take common sense and logic.

> > > > > > > Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> > > > > > > Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> > > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> > > > > > > means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> > > > > > > acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> > > > > > > destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> > > > > > > That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> > > > > > > real evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> > > > > > question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> > > > > > himself from his own statements.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You've shown how Silverstein may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.
> > > > > You have presented nothing which indicates he was involved in the attacks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As I just noted, I showed how Silverstein implicated himself from his
> > > > own statements. Try and read and listen.
> > > >
> > >
> > > His statements didn't implicate him. Your spin tried to implicate him. And
> > > it failed.
> >
> >
> > No spin there. But you wouldn't see it anyway, you're only useful for
> > getting these things out and asking the questions others might ask. It's
> > known in advance that you would support any government story they put out,
> > no matter how stupid it was.
> >
>
> Not really. I know the HSCA finding that there was a probable conspiracy
> to kill JFK was bullshit.

Yep, thank you for making my point.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 5:19:20 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > Funny, I don't remember Obama making any such disclaimers when he made
> > that statement. In fact was very emphatic. I believe he said "If you like
> > your doctor you can keep your doctor. PERIOD. If you like your healthcare
> > plan you can keep your healthcare plan. PERIOD." Sounds pretty unequivocal
> > to me. And we found out later he was lying his ass off because he knew he
> > couldn't sell that booger to the American people if he was honest about
> > it.
> >
>
>
> Yep, he was in sales mode.

So you think that is a good excuse for lying to the American people.

> But also he can't be expected to know you
> picked a low class bad policy that wasn't any good for you.

I am a better judge than Obama or anyone else as to what is best for my
situation. Typical liberal mentality. You think people in government know
what's best for us and that we are too dumb to figure that out for
ourselves.

> Obamacare was
> to make things better for people, not maintain the bad junk.
>

If people liked their doctor and their healthcare plan, they must not have
though it was junk. They didn't need the government telling them what was
best for them.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> > > > > > > before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> > > > > > > the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> > > > > > > occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> > > > > > > and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> > > > > > > asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was evidence out of his own mouth, but you would be unfamiliar
> > > > > with that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh really? He confessed?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You were given the clip of his lying about the reason for the
> > > collapse of Building 7. And the lies were explained to you as well.
> > > Forgot already?
> > >
> >
> > Why would I buy any of your silly explanations?
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Well you see, they were couched with proofs. But they would
> take common sense and logic.
>

You have demonstrated time and again you don't know the difference between
claims and proof.

>
>
> > > > > > > > Bob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
> > > > > > > > Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
> > > > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
> > > > > > > > means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
> > > > > > > > acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
> > > > > > > > destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
> > > > > > > > That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
> > > > > > > > real evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
> > > > > > > question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
> > > > > > > himself from his own statements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've shown how Silverstein may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks.
> > > > > > You have presented nothing which indicates he was involved in the attacks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As I just noted, I showed how Silverstein implicated himself from his
> > > > > own statements. Try and read and listen.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > His statements didn't implicate him. Your spin tried to implicate him. And
> > > > it failed.
> > >
> > >
> > > No spin there. But you wouldn't see it anyway, you're only useful for
> > > getting these things out and asking the questions others might ask. It's
> > > known in advance that you would support any government story they put out,
> > > no matter how stupid it was.
> > >
> >
> > Not really. I know the HSCA finding that there was a probable conspiracy
> > to kill JFK was bullshit.
>

You claimed I would support any government story they put out. The HSCA
put out a story that there was a probable conspiracy to kill JFK. I do not
support that story. Therefore I have proved you wrong when you said I
would support any government story.

You see, that's what real proof looks like.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:44:55 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 5:19:20 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > >
> > > Funny, I don't remember Obama making any such disclaimers when he made
> > > that statement. In fact was very emphatic. I believe he said "If you like
> > > your doctor you can keep your doctor. PERIOD. If you like your healthcare
> > > plan you can keep your healthcare plan. PERIOD." Sounds pretty unequivocal
> > > to me. And we found out later he was lying his ass off because he knew he
> > > couldn't sell that booger to the American people if he was honest about
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yep, he was in sales mode.
>
> So you think that is a good excuse for lying to the American people.
>

Don't be ridiculous. At the level of president he may not even have
known about the failure of many cheapo policies to meet the bar set by
Obamacare for quality for the people. They got bad policies and Obamacare
wouldn't support them. That also left out bad doctors or those with dings
on their records, or those that only worked under the bad policies.

> > But also he can't be expected to know you
> > picked a low class bad policy that wasn't any good for you.
>
> I am a better judge than Obama or anyone else as to what is best for my
> situation. Typical liberal mentality. You think people in government know
> what's best for us and that we are too dumb to figure that out for
> ourselves.
>

Typical conservative mentality. Thinks they know everything and walks
into trouble right away. Like Trump trying to issue a Muslim ban
improperly and being slapped back into his place. He thought he knew all
about it, and falied because of it.

A government that works for the people and not for the corporations
will specify instructions to do something in full. It's automatic, and
it's not an insult to them, it's just the natural way to do things. I've
written instructions for people to use systems that I constructed, and
many of them would not need the instructions, but there are always a few
that do. The same goes for what policies that people would choose.
There may always be a few that don't know any better and would harm
themselves by choosing wrong. However, Obamacare offered a list of
choices for policies, so it's hard to figure out what you're talking
about.

> > Obamacare was
> > to make things better for people, not maintain the bad junk.
> >
>
> If people liked their doctor and their healthcare plan, they must not have
> though it was junk. They didn't need the government telling them what was
> best for them.
>

Because some people THOUGHT their plan was good, doesn't mean they
knew what they were doing. It may be the same as it was when the banks
sold bad mortgages to low income people that couldn't pay for them. They
were sold bad products, but didn't know it until the balloon payment came
up. That as the beginning of the economic recession after the Bush term
that Obama got us out of.

> > > > > > > > Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
> > > > > > > > before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
> > > > > > > > the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
> > > > > > > > occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
> > > > > > > > and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
> > > > > > > > asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still no evidence Silverstein was involved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was evidence out of his own mouth, but you would be unfamiliar
> > > > > > with that.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh really? He confessed?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! You were given the clip of his lying about the reason for the
> > > > collapse of Building 7. And the lies were explained to you as well.
> > > > Forgot already?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why would I buy any of your silly explanations?
> > >
> >
> >
> >

> > WRONG! Well you see, they were couched with proofs. But that would

I agree that you act illogically in the face of common sense.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/5/2017 7:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:44:55 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 5:19:20 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Funny, I don't remember Obama making any such disclaimers when he made
>>>> that statement. In fact was very emphatic. I believe he said "If you like
>>>> your doctor you can keep your doctor. PERIOD. If you like your healthcare
>>>> plan you can keep your healthcare plan. PERIOD." Sounds pretty unequivocal
>>>> to me. And we found out later he was lying his ass off because he knew he
>>>> couldn't sell that booger to the American people if he was honest about
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, he was in sales mode.
>>
>> So you think that is a good excuse for lying to the American people.
>>
>
>
>
> Don't be ridiculous. At the level of president he may not even have
> known about the failure of many cheapo policies to meet the bar set by
> Obamacare for quality for the people. They got bad policies and Obamacare

The guy who did it did not tell Obama that he was wrong. He told him that
the plan allowed a patient to keep his current doctor.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 7:18:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 11:44:55 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 5:19:20 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Funny, I don't remember Obama making any such disclaimers when he made
> > > > that statement. In fact was very emphatic. I believe he said "If you like
> > > > your doctor you can keep your doctor. PERIOD. If you like your healthcare
> > > > plan you can keep your healthcare plan. PERIOD." Sounds pretty unequivocal
> > > > to me. And we found out later he was lying his ass off because he knew he
> > > > couldn't sell that booger to the American people if he was honest about
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, he was in sales mode.
> >
> > So you think that is a good excuse for lying to the American people.
> >
>
>
>
> Don't be ridiculous. At the level of president he may not even have
> known about the failure of many cheapo policies to meet the bar set by
> Obamacare for quality for the people. They got bad policies and Obamacare
> wouldn't support them. That also left out bad doctors or those with dings
> on their records, or those that only worked under the bad policies.
>

So your excuse for him is that he was totally ignorant of the healthcare
plans his program would be replacing. That's a hell of a defense.

>
>
> > > But also he can't be expected to know you
> > > picked a low class bad policy that wasn't any good for you.
> >
> > I am a better judge than Obama or anyone else as to what is best for my
> > situation. Typical liberal mentality. You think people in government know
> > what's best for us and that we are too dumb to figure that out for
> > ourselves.
> >
>
>
> Typical conservative mentality. Thinks they know everything and walks
> into trouble right away.

Unlike liberals, I am perfectly willing to accept the consequences of the
decisions I make. It's called being responsible.

> Like Trump trying to issue a Muslim ban
> improperly and being slapped back into his place. He thought he knew all
> about it, and falied because of it.
>

I was critical of Trump's proposal for banning Muslims during his campaign
and it was the primary reason I didn't vote for him. His executive order
did not mention Muslims or any other religious group. It specified
countries which are known for producing terrorists. I don't have a problem
with that as long as there isn't a religious test for who gets in and who
doesn't.

> A government that works for the people and not for the corporations
> will specify instructions to do something in full.

You mean like dictatorships.

> It's automatic, and
> it's not an insult to them, it's just the natural way to do things.

That's usually what dictators tell people. It's for their own good that
their freedom to choose is being taken away from them by the government.

> I've
> written instructions for people to use systems that I constructed, and
> many of them would not need the instructions, but there are always a few
> that do. The same goes for what policies that people would choose.

Why would you think the government is more qualified to choose policies
for people than what they would choose for themselves?

> There may always be a few that don't know any better and would harm
> themselves by choosing wrong. However, Obamacare offered a list of
> choices for policies, so it's hard to figure out what you're talking
> about.
>

So there rest of us lose our freedom to choose because a few might choose
badly. Typical liberalism.

>
>
> > > Obamacare was
> > > to make things better for people, not maintain the bad junk.
> > >
> >
> > If people liked their doctor and their healthcare plan, they must not have
> > though it was junk. They didn't need the government telling them what was
> > best for them.
> >
>
>
>
> Because some people THOUGHT their plan was good, doesn't mean they
> knew what they were doing.

So what made Obama a better judge for what was best for people than what
the judged for themselves. He gave us a one size fits all system which
means many people are covered for and paying for things they don't need.
Since I've already paid for it, I might as well get a mammogram on my next
visit to the doctor. Also I'll ask him to prescribe some birth control
pills for me. It's good to know that's covered as well.

> It may be the same as it was when the banks
> sold bad mortgages to low income people that couldn't pay for them.

The banks did that because the federal government pressured them under
penalty of law to make home loans to minority applicants who otherwise
couldn't have qualified. By increasing the number of people qualifying to
buy houses the demand for real estate spiked and so did real estate
values. Supply and demand. Banks knew these were toxic assets and so they
bundled them and sold them to speculators, many of who were at the
too-big-to-fail financial institutions. When the real estate bubble burst
and people defaulted on the loans and the value of the real estate was no
longer worth the balance on the loan, these speculators got burned and it
took down many of the large finanacial institutions.

> They
> were sold bad products, but didn't know it until the balloon payment came
> up. That as the beginning of the economic recession after the Bush term
> that Obama got us out of.
>

The lending institutions were pressured to sell these bad products by a
government that threatened them with discrimination charges if they
didn't. So they made the loans and the dumped them to get them off their
books. Liberal government policies created the crisis and of course the
liberals then turn around and blame the lending institutions for doing
what they were pressured to do by government policies.

http://www.uvu.edu/woodbury/docs/summaryoftheprimarycauseofthehousingbubble.pdf

Is that supposed to be relevant to the point that I made?