Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
Jealous that he's operating at a couple grade levels beyond you?  j/k
He made an effort to link together several issues and concepts, which is beyond most of the efforts in this thread. He actually touched on base motivations and outcomes. That displays that he at least thought through why he believes what he believes. That is greater than the snide comments and admission of swallowing the official story because it was presented first and with most authority. I give him marks for his effort.
I thought Flabbibulin's post was trite and insulting, making juvenile leaps of logic meant to belittle the poster in question. He completely failed to acknowledge the differences in the situations or the scales of magnitude. His predicament was a result of having mandatory insurance, while the WTC situation was a matter of an owner including a multiplier clause in the event of a terrorist attack. In one instance we're talking about having his sh*tbox replaced and the other reaping billions of dollars. I didn't see that as an argument of the posters logic, but a shot at it instead. I've yet to see anyone bother to actually discuss the issue the poster raised, that being the wind fall for many of those who had a vested interest in many related interests. |
Flabibulins post is a direct critique of the method of reasoning utilized, if you can't pick that up there's simply no point in a further discussion with you.
BTW, the insurance policy taken out by Silverstein maybe, just maybe, has something to do with the fact that the WTC had previously been targeted by a terrorist attack, unless of course that attempt is part of the conspiracy as well.