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.. 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. CG, Parky, why did they not make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb attack, like 1993? Seriously, why be so elaborate? I asked this a while ago but you declined to answer. Also, if it was an insurance job, who volunteered to fly the planes to certain death? 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. 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! According to my theory and my extensive research across the internet and documentary channels, my work points to the answer 'yes', as it was a known target, had been attacked before and represented US wealth like no other building. The actions of Silverstein 6 months beforehand suggest that the probability of attack was considered very high (I refer you back to the equation for why they didnt do it elsewhere). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Where's the links to what Silverstein did though. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm genuinely interested. Are there no newspaper articles about it etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) 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. 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? Edited February 21, 2007 by Parky 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. 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. CG, Parky, why did they not make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb attack, like 1993? Seriously, why be so elaborate? I asked this a while ago but you declined to answer. Also, if it was an insurance job, who volunteered to fly the planes to certain death? eh? Al qaeda flew 2 planes into the buildings, not the US. I didnt answer as i have never taken any other position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) 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. 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. Edited February 21, 2007 by alex 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. ....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. You're throwing the peas away and putting the shells in the pan though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47084 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. 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. Fucking hell man, Parky, are you still embarrassing me at this point, or have you finished now? 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.. 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. CG, Parky, why did they not make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb attack, like 1993? Seriously, why be so elaborate? I asked this a while ago but you declined to answer. Also, if it was an insurance job, who volunteered to fly the planes to certain death? eh? Al qaeda flew 2 planes into the buildings, not the US. I didnt answer as i have never taken any other position. Really aimed at Parky tbf, and unlike you he never answers. Still, personally I find even your theory pretty preposterous, I have to say. I don't see anything wrong with the official reasons for the collapse and this is a far more likely explanation to me. 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. 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. You're throwing the peas away and putting the shells in the pan though Where did you read about Silverstein then Chez? I can't take conspiracy websites seriously as there is basically no editorial control or even a need for emphasis on the truth. I'd be genuinely interested in reading from a credible source about it though, i.e. a half-decent newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 4183 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 fourwinds nutters website[/quo8. Definitions a. Terms Aliens – The Star People aboard their Starships now orbiting Earth Shan, who have come to our Earth at this time from more than two hundred other Star Nations. They are called the “Hosts of Heaven” and have come in peace and love to help our planet and her people in our Ascension into fifth dimension by 2012. They have come by orders from Creator God without violence or evil and bring much love, education and new technology to assist us in better health and in cleaning up the pollution on our planet. Ascension - the changing from third dimension (3D) to fifth dimension (5D), to rise in frequencies. Our bodies are presently changing from a carbon-based cell to a crystalline-based cell to accommodate these higher frequencies. Our planet and those who choose to do so will soon be moving into the fifth dimension. Channeling - to receive messages by various means such as by thought (telepathy), hearing (audio) or seeing (vision) from another dimension (such as 4D or 5D, etc.) These messages are called " channeled" messages and are given to assist us in 3D to better understand ours and other dimensions. I have a lot of sceptism of the official story but these fellows dont have a huge ammount of credibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47084 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 fourwinds nutters website[/quo8. Definitions a. Terms Aliens – The Star People aboard their Starships now orbiting Earth Shan, who have come to our Earth at this time from more than two hundred other Star Nations. They are called the “Hosts of Heaven” and have come in peace and love to help our planet and her people in our Ascension into fifth dimension by 2012. They have come by orders from Creator God without violence or evil and bring much love, education and new technology to assist us in better health and in cleaning up the pollution on our planet. Ascension - the changing from third dimension (3D) to fifth dimension (5D), to rise in frequencies. Our bodies are presently changing from a carbon-based cell to a crystalline-based cell to accommodate these higher frequencies. Our planet and those who choose to do so will soon be moving into the fifth dimension. Channeling - to receive messages by various means such as by thought (telepathy), hearing (audio) or seeing (vision) from another dimension (such as 4D or 5D, etc.) These messages are called " channeled" messages and are given to assist us in 3D to better understand ours and other dimensions. 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. 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. ....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. You're throwing the peas away and putting the shells in the pan though Where did you read about Silverstein then Chez? I can't take conspiracy websites seriously as there is basically no editorial control or even a need for emphasis on the truth. I'd be genuinely interested in reading from a credible source about it though, i.e. a half-decent newspaper. Most of the basic facts about the insurance policy are available in most publications. Here is a link that needs a subscription. http://www.economist.com/finance/displayst...FTOKEN=17110313 And one that doesnt http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1368115,00.html Am sure the 'terrorism' clause is in the public domain too. All the stuff on the WTC being a nightmare piece of real estate for years is easy to find tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Most of the basic facts about the insurance policy are available in most publications. Here is a link that needs a subscription. http://www.economist.com/finance/displayst...FTOKEN=17110313 And one that doesnt http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1368115,00.html Am sure the 'terrorism' clause is in the public domain too. All the stuff on the WTC being a nightmare piece of real estate for years is easy to find tbh. Cheers. Edited February 21, 2007 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) 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. 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. Edited February 21, 2007 by Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 fourwinds nutters website[/quo8. Definitions a. Terms Aliens – The Star People aboard their Starships now orbiting Earth Shan, who have come to our Earth at this time from more than two hundred other Star Nations. They are called the “Hosts of Heaven” and have come in peace and love to help our planet and her people in our Ascension into fifth dimension by 2012. They have come by orders from Creator God without violence or evil and bring much love, education and new technology to assist us in better health and in cleaning up the pollution on our planet. Ascension - the changing from third dimension (3D) to fifth dimension (5D), to rise in frequencies. Our bodies are presently changing from a carbon-based cell to a crystalline-based cell to accommodate these higher frequencies. Our planet and those who choose to do so will soon be moving into the fifth dimension. Channeling - to receive messages by various means such as by thought (telepathy), hearing (audio) or seeing (vision) from another dimension (such as 4D or 5D, etc.) These messages are called " channeled" messages and are given to assist us in 3D to better understand ours and other dimensions. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47084 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Did The Star People know about these wrongdoings by evil Silverstein on Earth Shan? If they're in on this I'll be annoyed. I expect more from a "Host of heaven". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22409 Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 Most of the basic facts about the insurance policy are available in most publications. Here is a link that needs a subscription. http://www.economist.com/finance/displayst...FTOKEN=17110313 And one that doesnt http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1368115,00.html Am sure the 'terrorism' clause is in the public domain too. All the stuff on the WTC being a nightmare piece of real estate for years is easy to find tbh. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) 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. 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? Edit: just realised it's the one Chez gave me. Can't you supply any decent sources of your own btw? Edited February 21, 2007 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Most of the basic facts about the insurance policy are available in most publications. Here is a link that needs a subscription. http://www.economist.com/finance/displayst...FTOKEN=17110313 And one that doesnt http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1368115,00.html Am sure the 'terrorism' clause is in the public domain too. All the stuff on the WTC being a nightmare piece of real estate for years is easy to find tbh. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 She did it. Blatantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Those norks look promising. 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? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Most of the basic facts about the insurance policy are available in most publications. Here is a link that needs a subscription. http://www.economist.com/finance/displayst...FTOKEN=17110313 And one that doesnt http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1368115,00.html Am sure the 'terrorism' clause is in the public domain too. All the stuff on the WTC being a nightmare piece of real estate for years is easy to find tbh. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) 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? 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? Edited February 21, 2007 by alex 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