That's really elementary...
Only if you seek to explain it without providing concrete evidence. Which is business as usual here, and I don't tire of making that as obvious as possible.
...and you understand it completely...
What I understand, completely, is that it is "elementary" for conspiracy theorists to plot points, draw lines connecting them, and as the points disappear (or are undermined by contradicting evidence) turn to defending the previously-drawn lines with little more than emotion and ad hominem arguments.
That's what you were referring to, wasn't it?
...you continue malevolently to play the sinister devil's advocate here.
I'm "malevolent" and "sinister" for raising issues and asking hard questions?
The interest of the perpetrators was to "shock and awe" the general populace. Merely blowing up the buildings would have not done that.
That's a rather gratuitious, self-serving and utterly unfalsifiable assertion, isn't it?
ROFL!
And it would have led to a lot of questions about how the explosives could have been placed.
I haven't yet seen any evidence backing the assertion that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Center.
Have you got any? And again - solid, credible documentation, please: no blogs, personal websites, or editorials. (Thanks.)
Regarding credibility...
Are you sure you're in any way qualified to discuss issues surrounding credibility?
Message 20823179
Message 20632903
Message 20590287
Message 19127439
Or, from another perspective: if credibility is indeed an issue, how do you reconcile hanging, or claiming to hang, a peace sign...
siliconinvestor.com
...with the absolutely horrific post that got you booted from SI a few months back (described here)...
Message 20136719
...or, recommending the execution of individuals with dissenting opinions...
Message 20760615
...or, perhaps a few other posts - one from Thanksgiving 2001, in particular, comes to mind - that you've made?
These sentiments seem to express anything but a "peace[ful]" or "illuminated" mind at work.
So far on SI you've been Ahhaha, LPS5 and now e.
I used to use the handle LPS5, and now I use 2.718281828459045235.
After over six years - and heading into an exciting new undertaking - I thought a change was in order.
You don't like 'e'?
Ahhaha is a different individual, but one with whom I happen to agree on the topic of regulation, especially (though not exclusively) where financial markets are concerned. He's a Republican, though, so our opinions diverge at junctures. Quite rapidly, at a few.
If you are asserting that I am, in fact, violating the Silicon Investor Terms of Use by employing more than "one active membership," I would strongly advise you to contact the Administration to report me at once. I insist that you do so, in fact.
Why are you so interested in being a serial imposter?
What, or who, are you suggesting that I am purporting to be?
Are you, as I detect by this question, equating skepticism and a desire for exactness, to yet another conspiratorial tale?
Who are you, really?
"Really," as opposed to the zero information you know about me already?
What do you hope to gain by lying?
I'm "lying" by asking questions such as these?
How can you possibly think your long-winded and silly arguments make up for the fact that you are lying and dissembling for the most part these days?
I'd like you to point to a single "l[ie]" I've told.
Thanks in advance -
e |
