Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

[Zuban]

Indeed. Most of my mates who believe in the CTs link things from youtube. Normally start with 'Hi I am Joe Bloggs and I am an expert i nthis field' or the title says the same. Hold up. You have never met this person, and now because they have made a youtube video claiming they are an expert in this, its 100000% proof.

I am like 'c'mon... stop making this too easy.'

one of my favourites was the fema camps and the stacks of coffins in a field waiting for when america is put under martial law, and citizens are rounded up by foreign troops, and presumably executed for some reason and burried in these individual coffins. Alex Jones and Jesse ventura were amongst those pushing this, but one quick google later, they were grave liners being stored in a field, apparently its a legal requirement that coffins be placed in grave liners for enviromental reasons in the state they were in. These guys make a living duping people who cant be bothered to verify anything they see or read, just conmen.

flouride in the water is shrinking your third eye, better buy one of my water filters to be safe! etc.

 

[balky12]

HE took out a new insurance policy on the buildings before 911

Wrong. It came up for renewal. As does every other insurance policy.

He infact decreased his coverage. He was advised that in 'one event' the total loss of both buildings was boderline impossible. So he basically halved his insurance cover and saved a load on his premiums. Then 9/11 happened. He got paid for one building but went to court to get both paid for. Due to dodgy wordings on the 'one event' clause the courts found in favour of Larry on some wordings and the insurance companies in another. (I believe London Market carriers won in court whilst the US domestic carriers had to pay 'twice')

 

[Danny75]

Wrong. It came up for renewal. As does every other insurance policy.

He infact decreased his coverage. He was advised that in 'one event' the total loss of both buildings was boderline impossible. So he basically halved his insurance cover and saved a load on his premiums. Then 9/11 happened. He got paid for one building but went to court to get both paid for. Due to dodgy wordings on the 'one event' clause the courts found in favour of Larry on some wordings and the insurance companies in another. (I believe London Market carriers won in court whilst the US domestic carriers had to pay 'twice')

This isn't accurate. He went to court to argue that it was two terrorist attacks, therefore he should be entitled to double the payout. It wasn't about getting paid for both twin towers instead of one.

 

[Danny75]

The original insurers for the WTC complex were three companies: AIG, Marsh and ACE. When Silverstein (and Lowy) acquired the lease for the WTC complex on July 26th 2001, the three insurance companies sold their stakes to twenty-four other companies. A process termed "reinsuring". The term "renewal" implies extending the contract with the same company/ies. This was different.

Maurice Greenberg headed AIG, whilst two sons of his headed Marsh and ACE, respectively.

 

[balky12]

This isn't accurate. He went to court to argue that it was two terrorist attacks, therefore he should be entitled to double the payout. It wasn't about getting paid for both twin towers instead of one.

Ok

You seen the policy?

I basically said what you have just said. He tried to argue it was two seperate events, meaning two payouts. His Total insured value was worth about the cost of a single tower.

 

[[TW]Fox]

To garner public support to invade Afghanistan

But why?

Firstly they don't really need 'public support' and secondly what was so special about Afghanistan that it needed to be invaded so badly that the enormous cost to the USA of 9/11 would have been worth it? The combined cost of 911 and Afghanistan is absolutely insanely huge and there can be no possible payoff from it that would eclipse its cost. Besides if you wanted to stage a huge attack to provide an excuse to invade somewhere there must be many more suitable targets than Afghanistan.

Plus if that really WAS the point there

The Russians didn't need to level half of Moscow to go into Afganistan so the idea the Americans had to pull down the WTC to provide a pretext to do so just seems bizarre and ridiculous.

 

[balky12]

The original insurers for the WTC complex were three companies: AIG, Marsh and ACE. When Silverstein (and Lowy) acquired the lease for the WTC complex on July 26th 2001, the three insurance companies sold their stakes to twenty-four other companies. A process termed "reinsuring". The term "renewal" implies extending the contract with the same company/ies. This was different.

Maurice Greenberg headed AIG, whilst two sons of his headed Marsh and ACE, respectively.

Dude, read up a few posts. I do work in the London Market. I am familiar with reinsurance. Thanks for explaining it to me though.

Also Marsh did not insure the WTC buildings.

 

[MookJong]

Common topic in my circle of friends at 3/4am after a heavy night. Well CT are always good I find around then. They mainly come out to play when my mates who smoke weed are present, and the 3 of them all agree with one another, which is completely the opposite to the non-weed smokers.... and their firm beliefs in this case are that is was the government. Anyone relate? But back on topic.

Forget 9/11 for a second. This applies to all CT and secrets. As soon as you tell 1 person something, the chances of others finding out multiply 10 fold, tell more people and it soon escalates beyond controllability. Easy concept to understand yes?

Bring back 9/11. How many people would have to be involved? 100's? 1000's? Some posts suggest here that the whole worlds media is. So 10,000's? 100,000's?.

Secrets are and can be kept, history shows us this, but also it all depends how 9/11 happened. There is evidence that shows money was wired to the lead hijacker Mohammed Atta from the Pakistani ISI. What if these guys really did want to be martyrs and they were facilitated in their actions.

I don't believe this scenario as there is no solid proof but there are hints. It wouldn't take many people in the know to fund the operation and keep it secret. Once you get into the CT stuff with bombs in the buildings etc, yes I agree this would be impossible to carry out or keep secret.

 

[Redz]

But why?

Firstly they don't really need 'public support' and secondly what was so special about Afghanistan that it needed to be invaded so badly that the enormous cost to the USA of 9/11 would have been worth it? The combined cost of 911 and Afghanistan is absolutely insanely huge and there can be no possible payoff from it that would eclipse its cost. Besides if you wanted to stage a huge attack to provide an excuse to invade somewhere there must be many more suitable targets than Afghanistan.

Well Afghanistan does border both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries which have the second and third largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world. So if the US wanted control over these resources Afghanistan would have a lot of strategic significance.

Plus if that really WAS the point there

The Russians didn't need to level half of Moscow to go into Afganistan so the idea the Americans had to pull down the WTC to provide a pretext to do so just seems bizarre and ridiculous.

Not the most accurate of comparisons, Russia and America, two different cultures completely.

 

[Danny75]

A recently unearthed 2007 United States Geological Service survey appears to have discovered nearly $1 trillion in mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself.

Lorimer Wilson, editor of www.FinancialArticleSummariesToday.com, provides below further reformatted and edited [..] excerpts from articles by James Risen* (www.nytimes.com) and Una Galani** (www.breakingviews.com) for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. Smith goes on to say:


The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world. An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

http://www.mining.com/1-trillion-motherlode-of-lithium-and-gold-discovered-in-afghanistan/

 

[ubersonic]

This isn't accurate. He went to court to argue that it was two terrorist attacks, therefore he should be entitled to double the payout. It wasn't about getting paid for both twin towers instead of one.

You're correct and incorrect, he went to court to claim it was two event's because the policy only covered up to $3.5bn per event and the destruction of both towers was worth substantially more than $3.5bn, so it was about getting paid for both towers. Personally I think losing two separate towers to two separate terrorist attacks counts as two events (it could also be argued that losing WTC7 as the result of the collapse of another tower was also a separate loss).

In the end he received a total of $4.6bn from insurance companies, it's going to cost a total of $11bn to rebuild the site (during which time he is paying $1m a year ground rates). Larry Silverstein is 82 years old, he will be long dead before the WTC site makes profit again.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So not known at the time and valued at less than the cost of the 911 attacks and the war itself.

Next answer?

 

[TheBDog]

Blimey, 9 pages in! Atlas23 threads NEVER last this long....

 

[Pug]

Whilst the suggestion that no planes hit is ludicrous, i wouldn't jump to the assumption that the "win" was war in Afghanistan, either. As you state, it makes no financial sense.

However, they also HAD to retaliate, so the Afghan war was more of a need than a desire.

The real motivation (if we were to even consider it was an inside job) will likely never be known by anyone not involved. Things like eroding civil liberties (would the TSA be what it is now without 9/11?), what would be the justification for all of the phone hacking, internet limiting acts that are being introduced if not for "our protection"?

Even if it WAS financially motivated, we can't look at the topline numbers either, yes the cost of rebuilding them is more than the payout, but not if you own the companies doing the building work, and the supply sites sending materials, and the tourism revenue it will generate (not to mention a mans legacy left behind...).

Of course, could just be some muzzies wanting their crusades...

 

[benjii]

Blimey, 9 pages in! Atlas23 threads NEVER last this long....

It's a topic everyone can wade in on though and the more ignorant you are the more discussion it creates.

 

[bazzabear]

The biggest ney say against would be all the people that 'saw' the planes. But just having abit of psychological understanding behind me makes it easy to see how people just agree with it..

Of course, some might say that the 'psychology behind it' explains all the people determined to make up horrendously unlikely explanations.

 

[Redz]

So not known at the time and valued at less than the cost of the 911 attacks and the war itself.

Next answer?

So the arms industry is very lucrative especially for US defence contractors and others? Seems hard to justify the amount of spending when there is not an enemy threat would you not say?

 

[balky12]

You're correct and incorrect, he went to court to claim it was two event's because the policy only covered up to $3.5bn per event and the destruction of both towers was worth substantially more than $3.5bn, so it was about getting paid for both towers. Personally I think losing two separate towers to two separate terrorist attacks counts as two events (it could also be argued that losing WTC7 as the result of the collapse of another tower was also a separate loss).

In the end he received a total of $4.6bn from insurance companies, it's going to cost a total of $11bn to rebuild the site (during which time he is paying $1m a year ground rates). Larry Silverstein is 82 years old, he will be long dead before the WTC site makes profit again.

This. As I was saying. Tbh it could have gone either way, and to some insurance companies it was defined as two seperate attacks and others only as one. Depended on the policy wordings.

Do you work in the insurance market? Or just did you research properly?

 

[Malt_Vinegar]

Blimey, 9 pages in! Atlas23 threads NEVER last this long....

You might want to change your page settings... The default setting is too short, most people change it to make pages longer. Makes reading longer threads less annoying.

 

[Mat]

Makes reading longer threads less annoying.

That's entirely dependent on who is posting!