Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. Irrefutable logic though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Inverse Parky stylee: but why would WT7 have been demolished by explosives when it wasn't hit by a plane? Seems to me it would only arouse greater suspicion. Also, why did the official report end without being able to fully conclude as to why it fell down? Seems a bit messy to me, given the way the other loose ends have apparently been tied up so well. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 ChezGiven, do you honestly believe this is standard practice in the states? Why wouldn't they let the fires die out, declare it structurally unsound, and then demolish it? How did they act so fast, are you suggesting they knew what was coming? I've seen several documentaries which cited world experts in skyscraper design who have said the collapses were entirely expected btw. Are they incompetent or part of the conspiracy? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. It takes a special kind of intelligence to not be able to form one coherent argument but at the same time poke fun at others for not understanding what's 'really' going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22409 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 ChezGiven, do you honestly believe this is standard practice in the states? Why wouldn't they let the fires die out, declare it structurally unsound, and then demolish it? How did they act so fast, are you suggesting they knew what was coming? I've seen several documentaries which cited world experts in skyscraper design who have said the collapses were entirely expected btw. Are they incompetent or part of the conspiracy? The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. Care to name some other terrorist targets, like the ones I mentioned? Are they rigged as well? I watched an hour long documentary on the Sears tower recently but it wasn't mentioned............ What about structural engineers, and engineering community, the majority of which think the planes triggered the collapse? Is it not possible that they are right? In fact, is it not likely the experts are right and not the internet bloggers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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.. Probably the most ironic post in the history of message boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22409 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Inverse Parky stylee: but why would WT7 have been demolished by explosives when it wasn't hit by a plane? Seems to me it would only arouse greater suspicion. Also, why did the official report end without being able to fully conclude as to why it fell down? Seems a bit messy to me, given the way the other loose ends have apparently been tied up so well. 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? Eh? I'm not the one that thinks "they" did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22409 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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.. Probably the most ironic post in the history of message boards. Leazestastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47085 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. As we both know, economic theory is predominantly bollocks. Escpecially when used to justify pre-rigging a skyscraper with explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 ChezGiven, do you honestly believe this is standard practice in the states? Why wouldn't they let the fires die out, declare it structurally unsound, and then demolish it? How did they act so fast, are you suggesting they knew what was coming? I've seen several documentaries which cited world experts in skyscraper design who have said the collapses were entirely expected btw. Are they incompetent or part of the conspiracy? The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. Care to name some other terrorist targets, like the ones I mentioned? Are they rigged as well? I watched an hour long documentary on the Sears tower recently but it wasn't mentioned............ What about structural engineers, and engineering community, the majority of which think the planes triggered the collapse? Is it not possible that they are right? In fact, is it not likely the experts are right and not the internet bloggers? Your documentary watching is edging you into the lead on this one Dammit, if only i'd gone for the discovery package! Didnt know that Al qaeda had already tried to blow the Sears tower up? Didnt know it was such an icon for western capitalism either? In terms of risk, as you would assess it for insurance purposes the WTC was way out ahenad of any other buildiong at the time given its history and its meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. As we both know, economic theory is predominantly bollocks. Escpecially when used to justify pre-rigging a skyscraper with explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47085 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 ChezGiven, do you honestly believe this is standard practice in the states? Why wouldn't they let the fires die out, declare it structurally unsound, and then demolish it? How did they act so fast, are you suggesting they knew what was coming? I've seen several documentaries which cited world experts in skyscraper design who have said the collapses were entirely expected btw. Are they incompetent or part of the conspiracy? The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. Care to name some other terrorist targets, like the ones I mentioned? Are they rigged as well? I watched an hour long documentary on the Sears tower recently but it wasn't mentioned............ What about structural engineers, and engineering community, the majority of which think the planes triggered the collapse? Is it not possible that they are right? In fact, is it not likely the experts are right and not the internet bloggers? Your documentary watching is edging you into the lead on this one Dammit, if only i'd gone for the discovery package! Didnt know that Al qaeda had already tried to blow the Sears tower up? Didnt know it was such an icon for western capitalism either? In terms of risk, as you would assess it for insurance purposes the WTC was way out ahenad of any other buildiong at the time given its history and its meaning. I saw that documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22409 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 ChezGiven, do you honestly believe this is standard practice in the states? Why wouldn't they let the fires die out, declare it structurally unsound, and then demolish it? How did they act so fast, are you suggesting they knew what was coming? I've seen several documentaries which cited world experts in skyscraper design who have said the collapses were entirely expected btw. Are they incompetent or part of the conspiracy? The WTC was a terrorist target, therefore should be treated as a special case. I've done the insurance maths for you above. Care to name some other terrorist targets, like the ones I mentioned? Are they rigged as well? I watched an hour long documentary on the Sears tower recently but it wasn't mentioned............ What about structural engineers, and engineering community, the majority of which think the planes triggered the collapse? Is it not possible that they are right? In fact, is it not likely the experts are right and not the internet bloggers? Your documentary watching is edging you into the lead on this one Dammit, if only i'd gone for the discovery package! Didnt know that Al qaeda had already tried to blow the Sears tower up? Didnt know it was such an icon for western capitalism either? In terms of risk, as you would assess it for insurance purposes the WTC was way out ahenad of any other buildiong at the time given its history and its meaning. Tallest building in the US and yes, a cultural icon, as is the Empire State and the Chrysler. Are you now saying only the WTC was rigged? How convenient! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. As we both know, economic theory is predominantly bollocks. Escpecially when used to justify pre-rigging a skyscraper with explosives. Theory is bollocks but those equations are just simplifications of real world insurance policy as worked out by an Actuary. Thats how insurance companies work, i'm not setting tax policy here ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22409 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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? His mate in the pub told him. Even if it's true, so what? I cannot seriously believe we are discussing the most important event in post 2nd world war history as an insurance job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. You've offered zilch in this thread tbh Parky, other than building a straw man argument based around anyone dismissing any of the conspiracy theories as being a sheep who believes everything the authorities tell them. And you've got the cheek to ask others for a bit of effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Gemmill, how do you store explosives if you cant put them anywhere where there might be a fire? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now