One for Parky

[Renton 22409]

 

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.

 

The implication is he anticipated the attacks though, so much so he rigged the towers with TNT and in the process murdered hundreds of people, in double quick time. I can't see a single shred of evidence to substantiate this.

[Guest alex]

 

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.

Not if he's going to make a loss on the deal (according to the Guardian) that would suggest to me he knew nothing about it.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

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.

 

The implication is he anticipated the attacks though, so much so he rigged the towers with TNT and in the process murdered hundreds of people, in double quick time. I can't see a single shred of evidence to substantiate this.

WT7 is the evidence that at least one of the towers was rigged. I agree it seems too much to believe they would pull the buildings with FDNY and people still in them who could have been rescued.

[Guest alex]

 

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.

 

The implication is he anticipated the attacks though, so much so he rigged the towers with TNT and in the process murdered hundreds of people, in double quick time. I can't see a single shred of evidence to substantiate this.

WT7 is the evidence that at least one of the towers was rigged. I agree it seems too much to believe they would pull the buildings with FDNY and people still in them who could have been rescued.

Well, if you accept it was definitely rigged with explosives. I'm fairly doubful as to the evidence it definitely was tbh. Also, it would be a massive risk surely as any hint of evidence that explosives were used would ruin any insurance claim I would have thought. There's a 2nd, larger enquiry pending though I believe. The first one was inconclusive.

[ChezGiven 0]

".... and thats a wrap everyone "

 

[Park Life 71]

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?

 

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...

[Guest alex]

".... and thats a wrap everyone "

 

Would you believe I've got work to do?

[Park Life 71]

".... and thats a wrap everyone "

 

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.

[Guest alex]

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?

 

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

[Park Life 71]

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?

 

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*

 

 

[Shearergol 0]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

[Park Life 71]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

 

Good it gets a bit lonely on the ledge.

[ChezGiven 0]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

 

Good it gets a bit lonely on the ledge.

 

The Lone Wum-man?

 

" Into position everyone ......Aaand 'Action!'"

[Renton 22409]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

 

I know nothing about it, but always believed it was technically possible to phone for a low flying plane. Have you considered they had the technology to amplify the voices and remove static, much in the way they can clean up video tapes? Which seems more unlikely to you, they did this, or they hired actors to phone their loved ones!!!! In fact, even that's not possible, as there is no way they would have had access to the passenger manifest that far ahead of time. So basically what you are now saying is the victims and their families are complicit in the conspiracy. Absolute madness, seriously.

[Guest alex]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

 

I know nothing about it, but always believed it was technically possible to phone for a low flying plane. Have you considered they had the technology to amplify the voices and remove static, much in the way they can clean up video tapes? Which seems more unlikely to you, they did this, or they hired actors to phone their loved ones!!!! In fact, even that's not possible, as there is no way they would have had access to the passenger manifest that far ahead of time. So basically what you are now saying is the victims and their families are complicit in the conspiracy. Absolute madness, seriously.

He's not putting forward a theory, merely asking a question. Sound familiar?

[ewerk 31592]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

 

Are you sure the new system isn't just to make it safe to make mobile calls rather than actually making it possible?

[Park Life 71]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

 

Are you sure the new system isn't just to make it safe to make mobile calls rather than actually making it possible?

 

Nothing in a plane ever works....Surely you know that.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can someone consolidate the Silverstein quesions for me.

 

Is the current theory that he unknowingly bought a wreck of a building, and when he realised what a state it was in, as a solution, because he knew there was a possibility of an attack, he had them rigged with explosives, took out a huge insurance policy, and waited until he could blow them up under cover of an attack and collect the insurance money?

 

Or am I just way off base?

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier.

 

Shit, I've entered into this again

 

 

If it was impossible to make calls from the planes, what exactly do you think that implies?

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

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.

 

 

 

What was the justification for 'pulling' WTC7?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4077]

Can I just confirm that I personally don't believe that the world trade centres were rigged. I do think there is something dodgy about the attack on the pentagon building due to the lack of large pieces of large plane lying around. Also (I may be wrong here) it is the only flight they have not released the black box recording on. I do think that the govt new an attack was iminent but perhaps didnt realise the targets would be so populous. I think they may have thought they were just going to blow up the planes. For this look at the lockerbie bombing where they used an attack on a plane as an excuse to bomb someone else. I don't think they organised the whole thing but feel they may have done more to stop it.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

.......clearly zero thought goes into Gemma's post at the best of times...But not realising he is out of his depth he reaches vainly for satire life raft.

 

Haha, Parky getting arsey because he's been completely fucked over by everyone in this thread and hasn't got a leg to stand on with his silly conspiracy theories. By the way, where's the satire in asking how they managed to convince an airline to go along with their lies? What's satirical about wondering what happened to the passengers of a flight which seemingly now didn't crash at all? How did they make a missile look like an aeroplane on air traffic control radars? Is that satire or just a valid question?

 

No satire Parky, just yet more questions that you haven't got a clue how to answer.

 

Assumptions based on the usual nonsense. Saying it is doesn't make it so...If you would like I could embarass you?

 

Go on then. You've embarrassed yourself for the last 14 pages of this thread, so if I can do anything to take the heat off, go for it.

 

By the way, just so we set out the ground rules in advance, for you to embarrass me you're going to need to provide some serious evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon, that explosives brought down the towers, and answer all of the questions that I and others have raised in this thread about how that would be possible and what happened to the plane, the airline, the passengers, the mobile phone calls etc. etc.

 

If you're going to post another link to some crackpot website, and then dodge any and all questions pointed in your direction then I'm afraid that's not going to do the trick.

 

 

No Gemma a plane hit the pentagon and completely dissappeared. Right.

 

Did you not see the earlier photos posted of plane debris? OK, so someone says it's not a 757, what does that imply? That someone trucked it there and planted it?

 

Exactly how many people are involved in this cover-up, as opposed to being innocent people investigating an attack? Bearing in mind missile debris and explosive traces would be evident.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can I just confirm that I personally don't believe that the world trade centres were rigged. I do think there is something dodgy about the attack on the pentagon building due to the lack of large pieces of large plane lying around. Also (I may be wrong here) it is the only flight they have not released the black box recording on. I do think that the govt new an attack was iminent but perhaps didnt realise the targets would be so populous. I think they may have thought they were just going to blow up the planes. For this look at the lockerbie bombing where they used an attack on a plane as an excuse to bomb someone else. I don't think they organised the whole thing but feel they may have done more to stop it.

 

Are you saying that Lockerbie wasn't instigated by Gaddafi?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4077]

Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole?

 

If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from.

 

Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up.

 

What's a compound missile?

 

A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc

 

Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen?

 

Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story?

 

Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously.

 

Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut?

 

I'm not defending the official story vigourously, I'm merely providing answers to the apparent questions you have about the story, and posing reasonable questions about the events you allude happened instead, in the absence of any positive evidence for it. This is what any rational person does when confronted with questions about their rational beliefs. I for don't believe the story because the White House told me, I believe it because it makes sense in the absence of any credible alternatives, and fits with my normal understaing of physics, logic, reason and humanity.

 

The questions I have about your alternative versions of events are just as valid as yours about the official story, but for some reason you imply one set of questions carries more weight because they go against the 'official story'

 

You propose events as having but one obvious cause, continually using the absence of something as proof, without any direct evidence. The CIA didn't stop the terrorists so they must have known about them, rather than they just didn't know about them. The US attacked Iraq after the Al-Qaeda attacks so they must have been complicit in the attacks, rather than Bush seeing an fortuitous opportunity for some unfinished business. There is no evidence of a plane (which there is) so there must not have been a plane.

 

Doubt is not proof.