Bill Clinton Puts Yet Another Smack Down on Truthers

hey, how bad can slick willy be?

i mean, the cterz darling ron paul calls their theories bizarre and preposterous.......

Originally posted by Griff

Actually, since no one died in WTC 7, the 'ol "pull it" comment is moot when talking about murder.

I'm talking about a man who has built his fortune from buying old buildings and demolishing them.

Before he bought the WTC complex, it was well known that the towers were white elephants and would eventually need to be deconstructed costing more than what they were worth.

So, why would a man who knows about all this buy the towers and put extra special insurance policies on them?

1- So why did you include him in your murderer subset?

2- Yep, lotsa money to be made demolishing old buildings and leaving the ground undeveloped in New York City, especially with the pitiful property values there. Much better to leave it bare.

3-What deconstruction is this? Please don't say asbestos, since this was encapsulated and no longer an issue. Also don't claim low occupancy, it was around 95% on 9/11.

4- what "extra" insurance would this be? Do you mean the fact that he negotited the insurance policy DOWN from 5B to 3.5B? How is less insurance considered "extra"?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

“You guys who think 9/11 was an inside job are crazy as hell."

I never really held a very high opinion of President Clinton…
Until now…

It’s a good thing he is not a member of this site though, or he would have gotten a warn for expressing his opinion of the truth movement.

So what happens if I quote him in my signature line?

This behavior must be encouraged

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Captain Obvious
I agree 100% Defcon. There is $$ to be made off the simple minds that buy this snake oil we call 911 truth.

Ok.. what part of my last post was worse than this? Ok.. So CO has a warn but why has this not been removed (covered over)?

Very interesting to say the least. I think there is some dust on my feet called Above Top Secret and it might be time to dust it off. So warn me and ban me.. I don't care.

Anyways, I said it once and I'll say it again. This intent of this thread was to do nothing but incite the anger of people who don't agree. There was no intent to debate anything.

On that note, I'll make it really simple for everyone. The rubber hits the road with me (and a LOT of people I know) with building 7. Until you can explain that you are just about wasting your time on everything else. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would watch building 7 collapse and know in their gut that there is 'something' about 911 that goes WAY beyond the supposed official 'explanation' and well into and past the realm of criminality that sits here at home and is at the very core of our government.

I don't care what the criminal globalists Bill Clinton thinks about people who believe that 911 was an inside job. If he thinks 'truthers' are all nuts than adress the questions they have and prove that it wasn't an inside job. If folks want to get on here, start threads stating that 'ooooh'... the smack was put down on truthers and then call them simple minded? Knock yourself out. It's not going to do you any good here.

MAYBE Vince Foster was a warning to the Clintons, so Bill is a bit touchy on the subject. If he made such a statement, read between the lines.

reply to post by ViewFromTheStars


View,

I got warned for comments on another thread. My post here however was not aimed at specific person. I was stating my opinion about folks that give money to the 911 truth leaders. I stand by my comments.



on another note:

Griff..... MikeVet took the words right out of my mouth in regards to Silverstien.

reply to post by Griff

Personally, I don't call Silverstein a murderer. I would like to see him investigated for insurance fraud. However, anyone believing that 911 was an inside job and a conspiracy involving, among others, Larry Silverstein, might be justified in thinking of him as a murderer within the legal definition of the term.

It hinges on whether Silverstein was an accessory to murder. In some jurisdictions an accessory is not differentiated from one who commits an act. In US federal cases, according to Wikipedia, an accessory is tried as a principal.

en.wikipedia.org...(legal_term)

The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime[1]:

(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

The question is really one of legal technicalities. I believe hijacking is a federal offence, but I don't know about the rest of the 9/11 offenses.

Assuming for the sake of argument that arranging for the unscheduled controlled demolition of an office building in which thousands are killed is a federal offence, or that the state of New York would regard an accessory to such an act as a principal, then Silverstein would probably be tried together with several other principals, since it is not unreasonable to suppose that he was involved in the planning.

In that case a prosecutor at the trial would refer to his crimes as among other things, murder.

Maybe the lawyers on the forum could help with this.




[edit on 9-1-2008 by ipsedixit]

Boy, a whole lotta of warns going around. Nothing quite like getting some "truthers" all riled up a Captain? It appears you get off on belittling people who don't see it like you do.

As to the OP, I personally don't like Bill so using him to make some kind of point misses the mark for me. Also, you again use this instance to try to associate Ron Paul to 911 conspiracies. Nice touch!

reply to post by infinityoreilly


As stated above.. i was warned on another thread. Maybe I deserved it.....oh well.

Sorry, but Ron Paul has nothing to do with 911 truthers and has stated so in the past.

Face it.. the truthers that take to the streets and disrupt events, tv shows, etc... IMO is not good for your cause.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


I'm aware you were warned elsewhere, the OP says the hecklers were Paul supporters shouting "inside job" so hence the association.

My cause is unknown to you.

Meh. Just jumping on the 'crazy conspiracy' bandwagon.

"Let us not tolerate these outrageous conspiracy theories" - G.W. Bush

Clinton is a puppet of the Bush family and this has been demonstrated over and over.

reply to post by MikeVet



I would like a timelime proof that Silverstein is actually loosing money at WTC.

That includes lose of rentable space, how much he was afforded from the insurance, how much he saved by not deconstructing the buildings, etc.

It's very easy to just say he is loosing money without the proof to back it up.

I'd like someone to post why Silverstein would not legally be considered a conspirator for mass murder, while simultaneously explaining to me the Nuremberg trials.

The point is you don't have to do an awful damned lot to be executed when you're helping Nazis.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by bsbray11]

another ´smack down´on Bill:
FBI:
´´Clinton is a womanizing, pathological, liar.´´
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Clinton is a puppet of the Bush family and this has been demonstrated over and over.

Can you show some examples of how Bill Clinton serves at the pleasure of the Bush family? Is the fact that he doesn't parrot kooky theories, the proof, or is there something else?

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Clinton is a puppet of the Bush family and this has been demonstrated over and over.

Can you show some examples of how Bill Clinton serves at the pleasure of the Bush family? Is the fact that he doesn't parrot kooky theories, the proof, or is there something else?

Do your own damn research. I already know you're not going to care how many pictures of Bush and Clinton golfing are around etc. You think everything is a kooky conspiracy theory Not worth my time.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. golfing with Clinton? Just because they don't hate each other doesn't mean Clinton is Bush's lackey. My threshold for proof of conspiracy is just higher I guess.

reply to post by BlueRaja



FBI:
´´Clinton is a womanizing, pathological, liar.´´
www.youtube.com...
youtube.com/watch?v=Sj2kee8nMPc&feature=related

eh, that wont be not enough?





[edit on 14-1-2008 by anti72]

reply to post by anti72


So that proves he is lying about what his opinion is? Look, I'm not a Clinton fan. I think he's very shady guy, but it's one thing lying to avoid embarassment. It's quite another to be accused of lying about his opinion.
To presume to know his opinion, other than what he has said shows a great deal of intellectual dishonesty and arrogance.