Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

[ChocolateStarfishRammer]

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

I agree. I just look at all the information available to me and make my conclusions from that. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying with all the information I have, this is the argument with the most weight.

And to be honest what annoys me more about people who say CT like 9/11 are rubbish, is the fact most go on nothing more than ignorance over not wanting to open their mind a little bit and do some research.

But, as with all CT, unless 100 people are all shown exactly the same information, then the argument can never truly take place as you have people with information fighting people without.. which ever way you look at it.

 

[anything I don't mind]

snip

DEW/nukes and judy wood

I don't think the evidence supports DEW however i did see an almost convincing presentation by a russian on his theory that it was a kind of nuclear device.

Although the evidence within the dust that points to nano thermate being used sort of rules out that. please see peer reviewed paper http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Active_thermite.pdf

The melted cars:

Basically the high temps from the controlled demolition caused super high temp pyroclastic cloud which is synonymous with high temperature pulverisation that can be seen in other controlled demolitions and volcano eruptions.

Basically this super high temp pyroclastic cloud travelled around the streets, dustified nearly everything that came in its path. There was also evidence that some parts of the pyroclastic cloud were higher temps than other parts. As evidence by the fact that some cars were melted right next to other cars that were not affected. This shows that the pyroclastic cloud was only super hot in certain areas.

You can see the two part presentation by Dimitri Khalezov

Here Dimitri tries to make the case for no planes as well as a underground nuclear explosion of some kind.

In my opinion he makes an ok case, although i am not convinced on the nuclear explosion i am still open to the possibility.

It would have certainly been easier to use one device than to spray/paint nano thermate gel or paint on to every single core column in the building.

I always thought the nano thermate gel was painted or sprayed on and the controlled demo was initiated from the top down unlike conventional demolition.

 

[TheBDog]

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.

Hold on just a minute there! You can change your page settings? Amazing! You sir, have taught me something today but also, welcome to my Xmas card list

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

GD does love a good TFH day. Seriously now, Kyle definitely did it(Cartman says you guys) and Stan works for the US Govt.

/thread

 

[ChocolateStarfishRammer]

snip

I haven't seen that presentation myself so will give it a watch later and comment.

I have seen that theory before tho and it would match up with the varied police reports that were going in on the day of 'people disappearing'.. but thats a very small report with very little to no evidence.

I also question about all the paper that lined the streets.. it was one of the only large amount of debris that survived really and very little burnt. So I find it odd that more wouldn't have caught fire if it were random movement clouds for lack of a better term.

As you say, I also have never agreed with the nuclear terms or bombs in the underground tub. The biggest evidence to support that is the seismic data from the day, which when compared to even baby nukes, is far off. Plus radiation and the rest.. dont think so. The seismic data can also be used to show that the weight which lant at the site was 1/10th (dont quote me on that, from memory) what it actually should have been.. which further supports the disintegration/dustification.

I do believe that thermite/c4 w/e was used on those top floors where the 'planes' supposedly hit however and down the columns to help it fall as commonly shown with the 'puff' balls of smoke that come out as per every demolition ever.

But as I say, haven't seen any of that info you posted so will take a look and comment further!

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

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.

Wowzers The CP is a mystery to me. Like Garth in Wayne's World I fear change

 

[Danny75]

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

Next answer?

Why do you assume it wasn't known at the time?

One retired senior U.S official is calling the government’s mineral announcement “pretty silly,” Politico is reporting. “When I was living in Kabul in the early 1970s the [U.S. government], the Russians, the World Bank, the U.N. and others were all highly focused on the wide range of Afghan mineral deposits. Cheap ways of moving the ore to ocean ports has always been the limiting factor.”

At least two American geologists have been advising the Pentagon on Afghanistan’s wealth of mineral resources for years. Bonita Chamberlin, a geologist who spent 25 years working in Afghanistan, “identified 91 minerals, metals and gems at 1,407 potential mining sites,” the Los Angeles Times reported in 2001. In 1995, she even co-wrote a book, “Gemstones in Afghanistan,” on the topic. And Chamberlin worked directly with the Pentagon, after they commissioned her to report on sandstone and limestone caves mere weeks after 9/11.

“I am quite surprised that the military is announcing this as some ‘new’ and ‘surprising” discovery,’ she told Danger Room in an e-mail. “This is NOT new. Perhaps this also hints at the real reason why we would be so intent on this war.”

And Jack Shroder, a geologist at the University of Nebraska, told the Associated Press in 2001 that mineral deposits in Afghanistan were so rich, they could be vital in rebuilding the country. He’s collaborated with Pentagon officials since the 1970s, when he worked on mapping the country. In 2002, Shroder was approached by several American companies who hoped to start mining the area.

It’s not clear exactly what those experts shared with military honchos, but the Pentagon’s knowledge of Afghanistan’s minerals clearly preceded the 2004 discovery of “an intriguing series of old charts and data,” as the Times reports. In 2002, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that the U.S. Department of Interior’s Mineral Yearbook, among other atlases, noted Afghanistan’s “significant deposits of gold, precious stones and other minerals waiting to be mined.”

But whatever the U.S military knows, and no matter how long they’ve known it, Russia likely has ‘em beat. At a 2002 conference on rebuilding Afghanistan, reps from several countries complained that Russia continued to withhold decades-old information about mineral deposits in the country.

http://www.wired.com/2010/06/no-the-military-didnt-just-discover-an-afghan-mineral-motherlode/

I also think the issue of "costs of war" has been covered. i.e. It costs some people in money and blood, whilst others profit.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." ~ Major General Smedley D. Butler

 

[Danny75]

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.

Silverstein doesn't need the money within his own lifetime. He'd been wealthy enough for many years prior to 911.

You don't take out a 99-year lease on something, and not think in the long term.

Why do this at his age? Only he knows. Some people just can't stop playing "The Game" right up to their final breath, I guess. Or they start thinking about leaving their progeny with even more than they had. Who knows, but it happens. Greed leads to more and more greed...

Federal funding (aka taxpayer money) is also going into paying for the reconstruction of the WTC. Make no mistake, Silverstein won't lose a dime in the long run. And once the office space in the new towers is occupied: kaching... kaching... kaching.

Was 911 a Silverstein plot? Nah. But he had foreknowledge of it I'm sure, and has been given the opportunity to be rewarded handsomely for his part in it.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Are you really saying that a businessman purposely destroyed his most prized assets killing thousands of people in the process just to get a bit more money that he doesn't need?

 

[balky12]

Silverstein doesn't need the money within his own lifetime. He'd been wealthy enough for many years prior to 911.

You don't take out a 99-year lease on something, and not think in the long term.

Why do this at his age? Only he knows. Some people just can't stop playing "The Game" right up to their final breath, I guess. Or they start thinking about leaving their progeny with even more than they had. Who knows, but it happens. Greed leads to more and more greed...

Federal funding (aka taxpayer money) is also going into paying for the reconstruction of the WTC. Make no mistake, Silverstein won't lose a dime in the long run. And once the office space in the new towers is occupied: kaching... kaching... kaching.

Was 911 a Silverstein plot? Nah. But he had foreknowledge of it I'm sure, and has been given the opportunity to be rewarded handsomely for his part in it.

Dude, no disrespect but he bought the towers on the cheap, 99 year lease might have been part of the deal? Or it might have been the maximum he could do under law? Either way, well short of facts there.

And earlier you came on. Told me I was wrong. Gave your 'facts', which were wrong. Ignored them, and now you carry on with the same trail of thought?

Typical CT behaviour. Blinded by your own beliefs.

 

[balky12]

Are you really saying that a businessman purposely destroyed his most prized assets killing thousands of people in the process just to get a bit more money that he doesn't need?

They were worth more still intact to.

Plus he got lucky in court to get the sum he did. He could have easily got less.

 

[Danny75]

Are you really saying that a businessman purposely destroyed his most prized assets killing thousands of people in the process just to get a bit more money that he doesn't need?

1. I stated I don't believe it was his plot. I believe he was an accomplice who was introduced into the scheme because he is a New York real estate magnate and because of his relationship with even bigger players.

2. Do I really need to give examples of elderly billionaires who keep trying to make even more and more money, when they could have stopped playing The Game a long time ago? Even when the profit for a project will return after their death, and go to their company and/or children? They don't think in terms of "instant rewards/gratification" like most people. They are taking part in a game where many "chess moves" are contemplated in advance. I made the point already but I'll make it again - Silverstein, at 70+ years old, entered into a 99-year lease deal for the WTC. If you are going to question why he'd invest for returns that would largely be obtained after his death, then why not begin with that fact.

3. "Prized assets" - from what I can make out, the WTC was only truly a prize if knocked down and rebuilt along with the new Transportation Hub. The cost of which would come from insurance money and the Port Authority, who are the largest financial contributors to the project.

 

[[TW]Fox]

1. I stated I don't believe it was his plot. I believe he was an accomplice who was introduced into the scheme because he is a New York real estate magnate and because of his relationship with even bigger players.

How does one introduce somebody like that to the idea of murdering 3000 fellow countrymen for profit without the risk of them immediately outing you?

 

[Danny75]

Dude, no disrespect but he bought the towers on the cheap, 99 year lease might have been part of the deal? Or it might have been the maximum he could do under law? Either way, well short of facts there.

And earlier you came on. Told me I was wrong. Gave your 'facts', which were wrong. Ignored them, and now you carry on with the same trail of thought?

I wasn't wrong. To rebuild the WTC in the exact same way it was originally built, was estimated by the judge in the relevant trial, to cost what was paid out to Silverstein. That he (along with others) chose to re-develop in a different way, and that it is costing more money, is up to them.

Your mistake is ignoring this in your calculations, which led you to lazily state that Silverstein was suing for the cost of the second building. It is a fact that he sued for double indemnity due to his claim that it was two terrorist attacks not one. That he claims the money would be used for a second tower is neither here nor there, because he's not rebuilding the WTC to the original design. The judge thought it a bit rich that he would be getting double the money of the lease deal he'd signed for the entire WTC, and ruled accordingly.

 

[balky12]

I never stated what his intentions were when it came to spending the money from his insurance policy.

All I did was correct whoever said he took out a new policy before the attacks. He simply renewed an existing policy and changed the terms. The total insured value was half what the whole area was worth. I wanted to clear up the whole misconception that he was trying to get double the whole sites worth. Yes he tried arguing it was two separate attacks to get two payouts, both of which (would he have been successful) would have equated to the total sites worth. He was only partially successful.

You then stated with Marsh insured the WTC (CEO was Larry's son) which they did not.

The 99 year lease deal is pure speculation. But 99 year lease deals are common place, even in commercial housing.

The towers, to him, were worth more standing.

 

[Rroff]

How does one introduce somebody like that to the idea of murdering 3000 fellow countrymen for profit without the risk of them immediately outing you?

Purely in abstract - by holding something over them - wouldn't be completely unusual for someone in that position to have their dirty little secrets. Or that by the time they fully realise what they have gotten themselves into they have got in way too deep to back out.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It's all so simple when you think about it! How come only Youtube and internet forums worked it out?

 

[Danny75]

How does one introduce somebody like that to the idea of murdering 3000 fellow countrymen for profit without the risk of them immediately outing you?

I'm guessing you'd tell them - "if you breathe a word about this, you'll be called a conspiracy theorist and nutcase".

Silverstein didn't need to know that 3,000 people would die. He could have been told people would have enough time to evacuate the towers before they came down.

Fellow countrymen?

Developer Larry Silverstein, who recently took over the lease of the World Trade Center (see July 24, 2001), later tells journalist Steven Brill that he’d been so sickened by the destruction on 9/11, and by the deaths of four of his employees in the WTC, that he did not focus on insurance or financial matters until “perhaps two weeks later.” But according to two people who call him this morning to offer their sympathy, Silverstein soon changes the subject: “He had talked to his lawyers… and he had a clear legal strategy mapped out. They were going to prove, Silverstein told one of the callers, that the way his insurance policies were written the two planes crashing into the two towers had been two different ‘occurrences,’ not part of the same event. That would give him more than $7 billion to rebuild, instead of the $3.55 billion that his insurance policy said was the maximum for one ‘occurrence.’ And rebuild was just what he was going to do, he vowed.” By mid-morning, he calls his architect David Childs, and instructs him to start sketching out a plan for a new building. He tells Childs to plan to build the exact same area of office space as has been destroyed. In fact, Silverstein’s lawyers claim the developer had been on the phone to them on the evening of 9/11, wondering “whether his insurance policies could be read in a way that would construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one.”

http://www.historycommons.org/timel...d=complete_911_timeline_9_11_related_lawsuits

People like him don't think in terms of "having fellow countrymen", except in front of cameras.

At the end of the day, what it comes down to is this - take a good look at the noble and selfless Mr Silverstein and ask yourself if he would be willing to go against the "higher ups" at the risk of his life, and his family's life.

 

[anything I don't mind]

It's all so simple when you think about it! How come only Youtube and internet forums worked it out?

It is not in the mainstream media are it is controlled by a very small amount of organisations and they created such a clever way of preventing any dissident discourse. Using the term conspiracy theory, they can ruin someone reputation through association with other theories that people classify as crazy and crackpot conspiracy theories.

All they then have to do is label their opponents a conspiracy theorist and everyone will dismiss what they are saying. On the media they keep using this same technique whenever any alternative narratives enter the picture. The media does not allow for alternative narratives to be taken seriously.

Without the internet these sorts of alternative narratives would not be as popular as it has allowed for people to investigate and share ideas together from around the world.

I think most people who don't agree with the official 911 narrative also wonder how the hell they managed to get away with it, especially at the levels within the pentagon but then i would mention that there was reports of 6 dead at the pentagon on the day from the initial impact and the final death figure was 120. I am yet to hear any more about what happened there.

 

[Danny75]

You then stated with Marsh insured the WTC (CEO was Larry's son) which they did not.

The 99 year lease deal is pure speculation. But 99 year lease deals are common place, even in commercial housing.

The only info I'd found on who the original insurance companies were, was AIG, ACE and Marsh & McLellan. If you can point me to sources which state the correct ones, I'd be grateful. And if you can't, it's okay, I accept I was only quoting available info, which might be wrong. I don't want to stubbornly hold on to incorrect information.

Perhaps the incorrect info I came across is due to Marsh & McLellan's role as a middleman:

The attacks are expected to develop into possibly the costliest event ever for the insurance industry, with some experts estimating that the total bill will top $30 billion. This means many of the insurance companies for whom Marsh works as a middleman will be shelling out huge sums. Two European reinsurers, Swiss Re and Munich Re, have estimated losses at nearly $1 billion apiece. Bermuda reinsurer XL Capital Ltd. said it will have losses of $600 million to $700 million. Property-casualty insurance titan American International Group Inc. has estimated its losses at $500 million.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000481180883828085

Not sure I understand what you mean about the 99 year lease deal being speculation. Widely reported.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/06/wtc.trial/

If you meant something else, please let me know.

 

[balky12]

Marsh are indeed a broking house. They make the same commission regardless of if the buildings fell or not.

Nah I'm not arguing against the 99 year lease. Just saying that there is probably no reason for the lease being 99 years, it's fairly common for leases to be around the 100 year mark.