[Omen]

I say the buildings were planned to be demolished. You disagree.

I say Silverstein claimed double. You disagree.

There we are.

Do we both either of us really know? Of course not, we go by what we read.

But here's another source anyway:

Insurance Payouts
Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

I say the buildings were planned to be demolished. You disagree.

I say Silverstein claimed double. You disagree.

There we are.

Do we both either of us really know? Of course not, we go by what we read.

But here's another source anyway:

Insurance Payouts
Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

I've neither said I agree or disagree with your points. I;m interested in why your so passionately sure you are right. Quoting form a website with the heading "9-11 Research
An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001 " .... doesn't instill confidence. Don't you get that?
Here's my question... for the third and final time. EVEN if those are facts, what inference do YOU make from them? These companies that run the old WTC are in the business of profit. If there lawyers see an opportunity to LAWFULLY claim money from insures then that isn't in the least shocking. I'm presuming your facts are spot on... so now what do you think it REALLY means hehe. What conclusion have YOU made.

[Omen]

And another:

Insurance dispute
The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies

Wiki

[Omen]

I will make one inference:

His timing in buying the WTC 24 July 2001, 6 weeks before it was attacked, could not have been more fortuitious from a commercial POV.

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

I will make one inference:

His timing in buying the WTC 24 July 2001, 6 weeks before it was attacked, could not have been more fortuitious from a commercial POV.

just one question before I go
did man really land on the moon? :P

[Omen]

Originally Posted by ange7

just one question before I go
did man really land on the moon? :P

[Omen]

Passionate? Hardly. Lukewarm more like. It's a topic I posted on cos that's what you do on forums. But your 1st post to me was disparaging so I felt the need to back up what I said.

You should read Wiki on Larry Silverstein. He's made an absolute fortune out of this, all for just $14m down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_S...urance_dispute

[lostalex]

I think it's funny that the same people who think George Bush is a complete idiot, also think he's the mastermind of such a huge conspiracy.

The idea that it would be possible to conceal such a large conspiracy in America is rediculous. If 9/11 was an inside job, it would require at least a hundred people to pull off, and you want us to think that not 1 single person would blow the lid, and try to get a book deal and be on Oprah????

You obviously don't know Americans very well. lol.

Americans have the biggest mouths on the planet.

[Omen]

To be part of a conspiracy you don't have to actively be part of it.

Take Larry Silverstein. Say he had foreknowledge of an attack and he saw an opportunity to make a killing. Or the shares in airline stocks reported to have been sold immediately before the attack. Aren't they conspirators too?

And say you knew everything, the whole truth, and you penned a book about it. Wouldn't you be labelled a conspiracist crank like any other?

And say you were the CIA, and you knew it was on its way, and you buried the information, because you were looking for a good excuse to invade Afghanistan, and mobilise what Eisehower called the Military Industrial Complex?- that economy within an econmy.

Look at the reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Everything to do with installing puppet regimes and oil.

Cui bono? Cui bono?

[Omen]

I'm not saying it was a controlled demolition but,

For people who say a cotrolled demolition takes many weeks to do, it does, but these (if they were) did not have to be controlled demolitions. They just had to knock the buildings down, and could have been done without all the precautions that take time.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

I'm not saying it was a controlled demolition but,

For people who say a cotrolled demolition takes many weeks to do, it does, but these (if they were) did not have to be controlled demolitions. They just had to knock the buildings down, and could have been done without all the precautions that take time.

Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

^^^egggggsactly.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Sorry to disillusion you but xplosives have to be placed precisely to cut through steel reinforced concrete building supports. Its not as simple as they make it seem in the movies. You dont just run aorund and slap little packs onto the walls.

You position the charges correctly, sometimes for reinforced concrete the only effective way is to drill into the concrete in order to insert your charge.

To demolish buildings to come down cleanly like the twin towers did would take days to place the charges and the tamping necessary to ensure that it was clean.

Tamping is the material you place around the charge to ensure the force is directed into the object you want to destroy.

Then there is the matter of detonation. Timers? nah dont care what you seen in mission impossible three, you dont use them. too unreliable. Remote control, radio detonation, problem is certain types of mobile phones, remote control units etc could instigate them. So you have to use wired detonations.

We have an occupied building that has been set with explosives to bring it down, no one notices the explosives, the tamping or the means of detonation?

Plus you have to place the charges and protect them because you are going to have an aircraft fly into the building and the aircraft could possibly start fires, these fires cant be allowed to affect the explosives either.

The planes have to hit a relatively small area when you think about it otherwise the 'official explanation' of the fire weakening etc doesnt wash.

What happens though if the planes didnt make it to target and the hijackers had of been caught and prevented from boarding the aircraft?

What happens if they didnt seize control of both aircraft involved with the twin towers? Or they missed the buildings?

What would happen if the fire from the aircraft destroyed some of the charges or impact destroyed or disrupted some of the explosives and they failed to detonate and the building didnt collapse? What would happen if first time detonation didnt occur? That happens a lot with explosives.

If either or both of the Twin Towers had stayed upright, eventually investigation teams would have had a look around and they would have found your charges, from the chemical examination of the explosive they would have found out the origin of the explosive, and if it was made or sold in the west, the buyers would have been caught.

Then anyone involved in the conspiracy would eventually have been traced, caught arrested and charged with at least attempted murder on a grand scale.

The strenght of the building was in the core. The construction of each floor was analogous to a bicycle wheel - core/hub, floors/spokes, external walls/rim. One on top of another. Take down the core/hub, then the entire falls. Access to the core I presume was prohibitted to maintenance men only, under control of the landlord, Larry Silverstein.

The charges could have been prefabricated in a kind of loom and installed secretly in the core, where noone is allowed access. Also, no safety precautions necessary to prevent debris being catapulted out and damaging the surrounding buildings.

There are people who are still claiming there were traces of the explosive thermite in the rubble, and an organisation called Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth that won't go away until there is an investigation.

[lostalex]

Hmmm, perhaps because the pentagon does not like to show footage of how to successfully attack the pentagon???

Maybe that has something to do with it???

Just a guess.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

it was thomas c

[Lucy.]

Conspiracy theorists have far too much time on their hands, simple.

[Chilltown]

Two planes crashed into two towers. That's what really happened.

[Chilltown]

I thought this was another one of those Conspiracy threads that the towers were blown up and not crashed into! Whoops, don't I feel silly.

Bush had ties to the Bin Laden's/Saudi family, so it wouldn't surprise me if he knew in advance it was to happen and that it was an inside job.

[Omen]

To expand on the hypothesis that cotrolled demolition finished off the twin towers:

Imagine Larry Silverstein knew in advance of the attack. 2 planes hit the towers and leav them standing in a perilous state. What then? They'd be too dangerous to go near, and almost impossible to demolish.

So, imagine he had them wired for deolition to avoid having 2 wrecked buildings hanging in the air. The buildings were constructed of an extremely strong core connected to the outer walls by steel beams which were the floors. To demolish them you'd just need access to the core. Prefabricate the explosives in a kind of loom to save time, and them install them in the core, where the public or employees don't have access.

What I have always found remarkable is how the antennae on top fell first, like the core was giving way first. Also remarkable was the complete disintegration of the core, which was extremely strong and where the structural strengh of the buildings lay.

Just a theory. A srtetch of the imagination, but until you explore ideas you can't debunk them.

[lostalex]

so basically yur saying you agree that al Queada planned and executed the attacks, but that the owners of the buildings just finished them off?

Instead of warning people about the attacks, evacuating the buildings to make sure no human lives were lost, instead of informing the CIA or FBI, they instead chose to let it happen, and rig the whole thing with explosives???

hmmmm. sounds unlikely to me.

Why do you think such horrible things about people that you have no reason to think such horrible things about?

Because they are RICH men it MUST mean they are capable of doing such things?? that is basically what yur saying.

I don't buy it.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by lostalex

so basically yur saying you agree that al Queada planned and executed the attacks, but that the owners of the buildings just finished them off?

Instead of warning people about the attacks, evacuating the buildings to make sure no human lives were lost, instead of informing the CIA or FBI, they instead chose to let it happen, and rig the whole thing with explosives???

hmmmm. sounds unlikely to me.

Why do you think such horrible things about people that you have no reason to think such horrible things about?

Because they are RICH men it MUST mean they are capable of doing such things?? that is basically what yur saying.

I don't buy it.

That's pretty much the substance of this hypothesis. I don't say I believe it, just trying to flesh out the bones of it and see where we are.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Omen

That's pretty much the substance of this hypothesis. I don't say I believe it, just trying to flesh out the bones of it and see where we are.

Ah so we are playing a game of lets pretend in that we ignore the reality and practicalities of such a plan and just pretend its possible.

Okay then to preplant the explosives could be done, what couldnt be guaranteed is what the impact of the aircraft would do. Even empty aircraft fuel tanks contain highly flammable fuel vapours which may cause a fire, destroying part or all of the explosives.

Too many things could go wrong within your plan. Would a businessman make such plans on the assumption that the events that did occur would have occurred.

It would only take one part of the plan to go wrong and the whole conspiracy is laid bare to the world.

Even then would someone knowingly blow the buildings when they were still full of people? Thats mass murder.

Why place explosives when the risk of discovery is high, even if the buildings didnt collapse he still picks up the insurance payoff, because of the dangerous state they were in. They would have been deemed to be unusable, unsafe till they were demolished and rebuilt.

[Omen]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Ah so we are playing a game of lets pretend in that we ignore the reality and practicalities of such a plan and just pretend its possible.

Okay then to preplant the explosives could be done, what couldnt be guaranteed is what the impact of the aircraft would do. Even empty aircraft fuel tanks contain highly flammable fuel vapours which may cause a fire, destroying part or all of the explosives.

Too many things could go wrong within your plan. Would a businessman make such plans on the assumption that the events that did occur would have occurred.

It would only take one part of the plan to go wrong and the whole conspiracy is laid bare to the world.

Even then would someone knowingly blow the buildings when they were still full of people? Thats mass murder.

Why place explosives when the risk of discovery is high, even if the buildings didnt collapse he still picks up the insurance payoff, because of the dangerous state they were in. They would have been deemed to be unusable, unsafe till they were demolished and rebuilt.

My point is predicated that they would be impossible or near impossible to demolish after. Also, there was the possibility the centre of gravity may have shifted causing the towers to fall on their sides.

The question of mass murder is a doozy alright, but say the timing of the attack was unknown, so maybe there was a 50/50 chance the workers would be at home instead of at work. BUt I concede it is a tough one to answer, but I'm reminded of the Israeli attack on the US naval boats off Israel and how that nearly precipitated a nuclear strike on Cairo, and I wonder what cost is too high if this was indeed a Machaevellian scheme to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

[spitfire]

I've never been interested in conspiracy theories before but i must say,i'm enjoying this thread.

[lostalex]

Omen, what do you think happened on flight 93? do you also dispute the official story of the passengers fighting back on Flight 93?