Park Life

Tried a couple of albums. Not fussed on them. Not a fan of Sigur Ros either (arjen robben or whatever it was called was ok). Too impatient to get to the lovely bit to sit through 20 minutes of preamble. Some would contest that it's all about build-up and release of tension. Personally I have to be in the right mood. Not really a fan of S.R. though. Always tempted to stick all the 'lovely bits' together. Although not long songs, take something like 'The Falconer' by Nico or 'Mask' by Bauhaus. They're both very ugly songs for a significant length of time, but when they suddenly shift into a beautiful bit, it makes it seem all the better. The impact would be notably lessened if it was just 4 minutes of pretty music. Same of Scott Walker's 'The Electrician.' Always in awe of your knowledge Patricia. Lovely voice when he gets going.

There's an extra zero in there. Still fucking appalling like. Hopefully we won't hang around in there after with special forces and the like.

Probably cost £5 to make tbh.

Barca?

Tried a couple of albums. Not fussed on them. Not a fan of Sigur Ros either (arjen robben or whatever it was called was ok). Too impatient to get to the lovely bit to sit through 20 minutes of preamble. Some would contest that it's all about build-up and release of tension. Personally I have to be in the right mood. Not really a fan of S.R. though. Always tempted to stick all the 'lovely bits' together.

John McDonnell Backbench MP, leadership challenger I have used every opportunity to oppose the government's alliance with George Bush and the US-led military occupation of Iraq which has resulted in the deaths of over 655,000, caused untold human suffering, put at risk the territorial integrity of Iraq, destabilised the entire region, alienated our own Muslim communities and given a huge boost to international terrorism - just as we warned it would.

Just noticed that, see above. Credibility has everything to do with it imo and, given it's mission statement etc. I'm choosing not to believe a word of it. Who's the sceptic and who's the naive one here again? It's factually correct in every detail. Your just being silly now. It has a mission statement...But the U.S. Govt doesn't? Words fail me. All the details about the insurance, the security company and his links to Kuwait are factual... And I'm supposed to believe that on your say so? And what are you wittering on about, it's the content of the mission statement (and the rest of the website I'd say after a quick look) not the fact it has one that makes me question the integrity of the 'article'. I think you're just unable to accept the first thing you googled was such a laughably bad source. Words fail me *Parky shelves plans to link to the David Icke site*

Would you believe I've got work to do? I'll have to work till 7 like yesterday to catch up. It's been fun.

Just noticed that, see above. Credibility has everything to do with it imo and, given it's mission statement etc. I'm choosing not to believe a word of it. Who's the sceptic and who's the naive one here again? It's factually correct in every detail. Your just being silly now. It has a mission statement...But the U.S. Govt doesn't? Words fail me. All the details about the insurance, the security company and his links to Kuwait are factual...

The Guardian article proves nothing at all, other than the Towers were insured apparently for less than it's going to cost Silverstein to rebuild the area, which he is doing (he isn't pocketing the cash). Seriously, this is what your demolition theory is based on? Why haven't some investigative journalists succeeded in rumbling the story yet? Is it plausible that Silverstein, already an uber rich man, would commit mass murder and risk capital punishment for this? I don't think so. I never accused Silverstein of having anything to do with the attacks. It was al qaeda that attacked the buildings. Nor did I tbf to me. Just a lot of coincidence shirley? He must have known summat was up though...I'd leave it at that.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. ....Gemma if you look into it you'll see the building was half empty most of the time and unsellable and soon to be uninsurable cause the steel frame needed re-coating with fire retardent asbestos. More of a mystery then as to why Silverstein would buy it....Of course he re-negotiated the insurance to cover terrorism about 6 months before the event...Normal course of events? I find this one of the most interesting aspects behind the whole thing as, if true, it's very fishy. Any chance of any credible links though? Lets start here. http://www.silversteinproperties.com/ Looks like the kind of fella who gets what he wants yes? So, 'no' then. Be patient Alex....You're haste betrays your intentions. http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleF...ArticleID=10744 Mission Statement: The Four Winds and The Phoenix Archives websites are committed to giving Truth to the people of our world and to revealing the lies under which we of Planet Earth have been living for thousands of years. Fuck me, this is like shelling peas. All the information in THAT article is factual btw. In the Guardian if that makes it easier: Mr Silverstein acquired the lease to the World Trade Centre shortly before the attack. He bought $3.55bn of insurance just two months before the event from 24 different insurers. Mr Silverstein had earlier lost a separate trial on the same issue, which applied to 13 of the insurers. That article has zero credibility given the source. Have you got a link to the Guardian one? Chex gave you the link earlier. Why does it have zero cred? It is factually correct in every aspect. It's a hippie website so what?

I have a lot of sceptism of the official story but these fellows dont have a huge ammount of credibility Parky's star witness is mentally ill. Not really interested in their other dabblings tbh.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. ....Gemma if you look into it you'll see the building was half empty most of the time and unsellable and soon to be uninsurable cause the steel frame needed re-coating with fire retardent asbestos. More of a mystery then as to why Silverstein would buy it....Of course he re-negotiated the insurance to cover terrorism about 6 months before the event...Normal course of events? I find this one of the most interesting aspects behind the whole thing as, if true, it's very fishy. Any chance of any credible links though? Lets start here. http://www.silversteinproperties.com/ Looks like the kind of fella who gets what he wants yes? So, 'no' then. Be patient Alex....You're haste betrays your intentions. http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleF...ArticleID=10744 Mission Statement: The Four Winds and The Phoenix Archives websites are committed to giving Truth to the people of our world and to revealing the lies under which we of Planet Earth have been living for thousands of years. Fuck me, this is like shelling peas. All the information in THAT article is factual btw. In the Guardian if that makes it easier: Mr Silverstein acquired the lease to the World Trade Centre shortly before the attack. He bought $3.55bn of insurance just two months before the event from 24 different insurers. Mr Silverstein had earlier lost a separate trial on the same issue, which applied to 13 of the insurers.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. ....Gemma if you look into it you'll see the building was half empty most of the time and unsellable and soon to be uninsurable cause the steel frame needed re-coating with fire retardent asbestos. More of a mystery then as to why Silverstein would buy it....Of course he re-negotiated the insurance to cover terrorism about 6 months before the event...Normal course of events? I find this one of the most interesting aspects behind the whole thing as, if true, it's very fishy. Any chance of any credible links though? Lets start here. http://www.silversteinproperties.com/ Looks like the kind of fella who gets what he wants yes? So, 'no' then. Be patient Alex....You're haste betrays your intentions. http://fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleF...ArticleID=10744 September 06, 2006 You’ve got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership. Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec. Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated. Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”. Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million. There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this? The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion! Makes interesting reading. Of course you and Gemima are fully versed in all this yes?

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. ....Gemma if you look into it you'll see the building was half empty most of the time and unsellable and soon to be uninsurable cause the steel frame needed re-coating with fire retardent asbestos. More of a mystery then as to why Silverstein would buy it....Of course he re-negotiated the insurance to cover terrorism about 6 months before the event...Normal course of events? I find this one of the most interesting aspects behind the whole thing as, if true, it's very fishy. Any chance of any credible links though? Lets start here. http://www.silversteinproperties.com/ Looks like the kind of fella who gets what he wants yes?

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. What a ridiculous argument. Why? You two are good at being dismissive, but seem to have nowt beyond that.. Am I missing something? I thought they were dismissing the conspiracy theory? What else do you suggest should be forthcoming? Perhaps more cut and paste of the official story...Would look like some effort was being made.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. ....way over his head....HE is an expert after all. Parky adds Chez's argument to his stack of evidence for why the building was pre-rigged with explosive. File under "irrefutable".

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. ....Gemma if you look into it you'll see the building was half empty most of the time and unsellable and soon to be uninsurable cause the steel frame needed re-coating with fire retardent asbestos. More of a mystery then as to why Silverstein would buy it....Of course he re-negotiated the insurance to cover terrorism about 6 months before the event...Normal course of events?

The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. They don't understand that Chiz. They think it's the local Marks and Sparks.

I would concede there is a possibility a decision was made to demolish WTC7 for economic reason, after it was a burning hulk. BUT I personally think it collapsed due to poor structural design. I really don't see the need for a cover up on this scale if the demolition was deemed necessary. Yes exactly there is no need for a cover up is there? Not really, no. So why bring it down?

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. What a ridiculous argument. Why? You two are good at being dismissive, but seem to have nowt beyond that..

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. ....way over his head....HE is an expert after all.

I would concede there is a possibility a decision was made to demolish WTC7 for economic reason, after it was a burning hulk. BUT I personally think it collapsed due to poor structural design. I really don't see the need for a cover up on this scale if the demolition was deemed necessary. Yes exactly there is no need for a cover up is there?

I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation. Its the crackpots that drag the debate down tbh. Basically its Parky's fault. Et tu Brute!? I must stop laughing at the regurgitation of nonsense with little grasp of any understanding of the events. You're all right (well Renton and SSH) Arabs did it....It was a total failiure of U.S. intelligence.

You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one. I'm well aware they hit the buildings, I also think they brought the buildings down. Naive of me, I know when you have internet evidence to prove otherwise Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? The planes and the explosives are now unrelated? A horrible coincidence though, don't you think? Or are you saying that a member of "they" just happened to be eating pancakes across from the towers when the planes hit, and was given the message to go and dump some explosives in the basement? Explosives which he'd taken to breakfast with him. As for "You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there", there are lots of things that can't be refuted, Parky, but that doesn't make them a plausible argument ffs. For simpletons......The people who laid the charges might have been totally unconnected to the hijackers..Is that rocket science in your book? Not rocket science, no, but bordering on science fiction. Why?