Libya is finished, what country will be next?

[Psycho Sonny]

In regards to cheap oil. That is a thing of the past.

There are companies now that solely just buy oil when it's cheap and sit on it and then sell when the price goes up.

They have capabilities to store millions of litres of oil too in single locations. Sometimes even park it in the middle of an ocean.

Oil prices rarely will go down by much.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Neky

Now that a Rothschild central bank is being installed and the oil is being sold to Western companies at insanely cheap prices, which country is next be liberated and given a dose of good old Western Democracy?

Iran?
Syria?
Algeria?
Uganda?
Somalia?
Pakistan?
North Korea?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUhlFO5qjVE

None

 

[BowdonUK]

nope your general phrasing and the fact that i know you never even opened the nist report but will continute to "ask questions" despite there being a fairly comprehensive engineering report of very readable length at your fingertips as it has been for the past 17 years

Ok, first off thank you for making me read the official reports.

The report you linked only briefly mentioned WTC 7. There was a companion report that focused fully on it called NIST NCSTAR 1A, located here: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

I'm half way reading the report and so far it's actually strengthening my case to be asking questions, especially as there is a video of the guy, Larry Silverstein who jointly owns the building, that directly contradicts the report.

The only part, and interesting information about WTC 7, in the report you posted was that all the alarm system was off due to a test that day. This means the entire system was disabled through-out the building and if a sprinkler did go off, which some did according to the report, the operator at the console wouldn't see an alarm going off.

I have 10 bits of interesting information so far and I'm not even half way through. It seems like an honest report. But even in the report they don't understand how a regular fire caused by debris from WTC 1 could collapse the building. The report even says that its the first known instance of a total collapse of a tall building due to fires.

According to a simuilation hypothetical, no blast played a role in the collapse of WTC 7.

So the report leaves it open as a mystery.

Meanwhile we have Larry Silverstein saying;

I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire. I said, I know we've had such a terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it... and they made that decision to pull it. Then we watched the building collapse.

I think that contradicts what the report says. It's interesting that Silverstein was a contributor (Silverstein Properties) to the report he's just gone against. He's solved the mystery!

 

[Rroff]

Ok, first off thank you for making me read the official reports.

The report you linked only briefly mentioned WTC 7. There was a companion report that focused fully on it called NIST NCSTAR 1A, located here: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

I'm half way reading the report and so far it's actually strengthening my case to be asking questions, especially as there is a video of the guy, Larry Silverstein who jointly owns the building, that directly contradicts the report.

The only part, and interesting information about WTC 7, in the report you posted was that all the alarm system was off due to a test that day. This means the entire system was disabled through-out the building and if a sprinkler did go off, which some did according to the report, the operator at the console wouldn't see an alarm going off.

I have 10 bits of interesting information so far and I'm not even half way through. It seems like an honest report. But even in the report they don't understand how a regular fire caused by debris from WTC 1 could collapse the building. The report even says that its the first known instance of a total collapse of a tall building due to fires.

According to a simuilation hypothetical, no blast played a role in the collapse of WTC 7.

So the report leaves it open as a mystery.

Meanwhile we have Larry Silverstein saying;


I think that contradicts what the report says. It's interesting that Silverstein was a contributor (Silverstein Properties) to the report he's just gone against. He's solved the mystery!

I spent quite a lot of time looking into WTC7 for reasons I'm probably going to hold back on for now - IMO a lot of the inconsistencies people see are due to the American attitude towards saving face combined with some covering up for incompetence rather than indications of a deeper conspiracy.

 

[BowdonUK]

I spent quite a lot of time looking into WTC7 for reasons I'm probably going to hold back on for now - IMO a lot of the inconsistencies people see are due to the American attitude towards saving face combined with some covering up for incompetence rather than indications of a deeper conspiracy.

I would generally agree with that.

After reading half of the report (I think the last half is recommendations), even in the report they don't know why a regular fire collapsed the building. I think its that open ended nature that fuels conspiracies.

It doesn't help that Larry Silverstein is admitting in the video that either he, or the fire department commander, "pulled it". What is meant by "pull it"? and then watch it collapse. That suggests someone took the decision to bring it down. But that is inconsistant to what the official report said. Though the report does have a get out clause as at the start of all these reports all documentary evidence had been removed before the investigation started. This is said in all the reports.

I recommend reading the reports.

Here is a link to the short Larry video I quoted from earlier;

 

[Tefal]

In regards to cheap oil. That is a thing of the past.

There are companies now that solely just buy oil when it's cheap and sit on it and then sell when the price goes up.

They have capabilities to store millions of litres of oil too in single locations. Sometimes even park it in the middle of an ocean.

Oil prices rarely will go down by much.

Don't they buy futures storing oil is a nightmare.

Strategic resveres for the US run by the govenrment in massive underground salt tanks are onky like a week or two worth for the military.

Millions of lovers is nothing.

Millions of barrels is hardly a drop

 

[Rroff]

The thing is with stuff like that is it just smacks of fake news etc.. What was the name of the conference for example? Do you have any links re: high level conference being cancelled on 9/11? I mean just following through that sort of thing could give an actual explanation of why (assuming it actually happened) this conference was cancelled.

There has been so much attention paid to this event - who was in the building, who was supposed to be in the building that day (all sorts of people sharing their lucky escape stories) - if an entire conference escaped death then that is certainly of interest in general. If there were rumours about it then that is of interest to conspiracy theorists.

I don't doubt that your dad was worried about colleagues in NYC that day btw nor am I questioning your recollection of him calling people. But the conference thing and rumour about it being cancelled for security reasons sounds very dubious and would be the sort of thing that would provoke interest.

My dad doesn't remember that level of specifics after all this time and I can't see any links online to conferences cancelled, etc. except where i.e. the Bush's nephew or A list celebs were involved. I can give general information based on the area of industry involved and the kinds of regulatory bodies, etc. that normally attend.

I worked there for a year around that time and there was never an actual explanation that came back to us - likely information and possibly even people working on the backend were lost in events that day.

 

[dowie]

My dad doesn't remember that level of specifics after all this time and I can't see any links online to conferences cancelled, etc. except where i.e. the Bush's nephew or A list celebs were involved. I can give general information based on the area of industry involved and the kinds of regulatory bodies, etc. that normally attend.

I worked there for a year around that time and there was never an actual explanation that came back to us - likely information and possibly even people working on the backend were lost in events that day.

It is highly unlikely that information about a conference that was due to happen and got cancelled has been lost. It is far more likely that it didn't happen tbh... It is exactly the sort of thing that gets spread around as fake news.

 

[Rroff]

It is highly unlikely that information about a conference that was due to happen and got cancelled has been lost. It is far more likely that it didn't happen tbh... It is exactly the sort of thing that gets spread around as fake news.

Definitely happened - whether you believe me or not heh - I've still got good memories of seeing my dad's reaction and the reaction at work on their first day back though a lot of other information I've forgotten after all this time.

EDIT: I mean the information might be out there somewhere but I've no ability to join the dots after all this time and definitely no one my dad ever talked to could give any specifics.

 

[dowie]

Definitely happened - whether you believe me or not heh - I've still got good memories of seeing my dad's reaction and the reaction at work on their first day back though a lot of other information I've forgotten after all this time.

EDIT: I mean the information might be out there somewhere but I've no ability to join the dots after all this time and definitely no one my dad ever talked to could give any specifics.

but that's the thing, I'm not questioning that you can recall your Dad worrying about colleagues in NYC on the day, I'm questioning the other stuff and you can't even provide basic details of the other stuff... the fact that some conference due to take place on 9/11 was cancelled "security reasons" would be very interesting - yet you have nothing to show for it.

 

[Rroff]

but that's the thing, I'm not questioning that you can recall your Dad worrying about colleagues in NYC on the day, I'm questioning the other stuff and you can't even provide basic details of the other stuff... the fact that some conference due to take place on 9/11 was cancelled "security reasons" would be very interesting - yet you have nothing to show for it.

I can't even say it was security reasons - that seemed the most likely explanation banded around at the time as there was never any proper information communicated back. To put it into perspective we had a couple of people there as industry representatives in cooperation with BSI so pretty low down the chain.

 

[dowie]

I can't even say it was security reasons - that seemed the most likely explanation banded around at the time as there was never any proper information communicated back. To put it into perspective we had a couple of people there as industry representatives in cooperation with BSI so pretty low down the chain.

Yup, you said it was rumoured to be security reasons and cited the specific nationalities of the people the rumour involved, you also stated that it would take something pretty extraordinary in order to cancel it. Can you not see why this is incredibly dubious to make as a claim when you can't even provide the name of this conference?

I mean this would be incredibly interesting - in fact this is the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists absolutely love, yet there doesn't appear to be anything at all to even collaborate that the conference you claim was cancelled even existed in the first place.

 

[Rroff]

Yup, you said it was rumoured to be security reasons and cited the specific nationalities of the people the rumour involved, you also stated that it would take something pretty extraordinary in order to cancel it. Can you not see why this is incredibly dubious to make as a claim when you can't even provide the name of this conference?

I mean this would be incredibly interesting - in fact this is the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists absolutely love, yet there doesn't appear to be anything at all to even collaborate that the conference you claim was cancelled even existed in the first place.

You are talking about something that happened ~17 years ago - if this was like 2001-2002 it would be a bit different. I know general information and can remember a lot of what was talked about at the time - both with my dad and at work it was obviously a topic that came up a lot at the time. He hasn't been particularly forthcoming with specifics that would be useful.

 

[StriderX]

Don't we know for a fact that the CIA at least definitely knew something was going down, it's super "whatever" at this point mind you.

 

[dowie]

You are talking about something that happened ~17 years ago - if this was like 2001-2002 it would be a bit different. I know general information and can remember a lot of what was talked about at the time - both with my dad and at work it was obviously a topic that came up a lot at the time. He hasn't been particularly forthcoming with specifics that would be useful.

yes but it isn't some spurious details being asked for - it is some basic information about some high level conference you claim was cancelled for rumoured security reasons. You say for example you spent a lot of time looking into WTC7, yet you apparently had something interesting here in this conference being cancelled and you can't even give the name of it.

For example there was a hotel with conference facilities at 3WTC - the Marriott though it was full to capacity and the conference that was booked there (by the National Association for Business Economics) did take place - there are accounts from survivors who attended that conference.

I think your dad has perhaps confused things and his second hand account that has turned into your third hand account doesn't really stand up to scrutiny at all, it is a bit dubious to pass it on even as an anecdote when you don't even have basic details and you honestly can't say for sure that what you're passing on is genuine.

 

[Johno please?]

Don't we know for a fact that the CIA at least definitely knew something was going down, it's super "whatever" at this point mind you.

Yup, communication between the FBI and the CIA wasnt great is an understatement.


This video is enlightening.... 7:10

 

[ubersonic]

So why did WTC7 collapse? I'm genuinely asking because I've not followed every detail of 9/11.

Short answer, the WTC complex consisted of seven buildings. Planes were flown into the two largest buildings WTC1 and WTC2, this caused catastrophic damage and multiple fires which eventually caused the buildings to collapse thus destroying the smaller WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6 and causing severe damage to WTC7 (the outermost building of the complex) setting it ablaze. WTC7 was much newer than WTC1/WTC2 (the first designs of their kind) and so had a sprinkler system, sadly this was disabled by the collapse of WTC1/WTC2 and so with structural damage, widespread fires and an no war to fight the fire WTC7 collapsed too.

 

[Rroff]

yes but it isn't some spurious details being asked for - it is some basic information about some high level conference you claim was cancelled for rumoured security reasons. You say for example you spent a lot of time looking into WTC7, yet you apparently had something interesting here in this conference being cancelled and you can't even give the name of it.

For example there was a hotel with conference facilities at 3WTC - the Marriott though it was full to capacity and the conference that was booked there (by the National Association for Business Economics) did take place - there are accounts from survivors who attended that conference.

I think your dad has perhaps confused things and his second hand account that has turned into your third hand account doesn't really stand up to scrutiny at all, it is a bit dubious to pass it on even as an anecdote when you don't even have basic details and you honestly can't say for sure that what you're passing on is genuine.

Nope - these are my observations from something that actually happened I just don't have all the information due to a mixture of time past and that I only worked as a lab assistant but had some privy to higher level goings on as my dad headed up the division.

 

[dowie]

Nope - these are my observations from something that actually happened I just don't have all the information due to a mixture of time past and that I only worked as a lab assistant but had some privy to higher level goings on as my dad headed up the division.

The conference isn't an observation of yours though, I'm not disputing your observations - that you dad told you a story and that you heard him being worried about some colleagues in NYC on 9/11.

But your story itself about the conference isn't a 1st hand account, you can't even find basic information about it and yet you're happy to share it/pass it on etc..

 

[Angilion]

I would generally agree with that.

After reading half of the report (I think the last half is recommendations), even in the report they don't know why a regular fire collapsed the building. I think its that open ended nature that fuels conspiracies.

It doesn't help that Larry Silverstein is admitting in the video that either he, or the fire department commander, "pulled it". What is meant by "pull it"? and then watch it collapse. That suggests someone took the decision to bring it down. But that is inconsistant to what the official report said. Though the report does have a get out clause as at the start of all these reports all documentary evidence had been removed before the investigation started. This is said in all the reports.

I recommend reading the reports.

Here is a link to the short Larry video I quoted from earlier;

I'm genuinely curious about something. Do you think that a large building would be demolished by pulling it down, i.e. by attaching ropes or chains to it and pulling on them? While it was on fire? The person who put the title on that video obviously does, but do you?

A smaller building that's not on fire, maybe, but one that size on fire and in an urban environment? It doesn't sound very plausible to me. That's not how it's done.

Ending the attempt to fight the fire sounds more plausible to me. Not very clear phrasing, but a more plausible explanation than having lots of people climb a large burning building to attach a lot of chains to it and pull it down somehow. If that's even possible. Which I doubt very much.