[Omen]

Of course I'm quoting from the internet, or do you think I'm a principal in the affair?

[ange7]

[QUOTE=Omen;3793983]

Originally Posted by ange7

says who? .... no numbers means your quoting from the internet. And even if true you FAILED to answer what inference your making from this "fact".[/QUOTE]


Make any inference you like.

LOL!!!!
Mate it's your point! You said it....now explain why you posted it. I'm guessing you posted this to make a point about something. Let's hear it!
Why don't you just say what you dying to say hehe.
...or do you think your job is to cut and paste BS from www.conspiracyTheories.com?

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

Of course I'm quoting from the internet, or do you think I'm a principal in the affair?

the site your quoting from isn't a reliable source. Don't you get that ANYONE can create a website. The fact that it is written on a website doesn't make it a FACT.

[ange7]

you like a pinatas full of conspiracy theories and I think if I keep thumping you a few will pop out. :P

[Omen]

Originally Posted by ange7

the site your quoting from isn't a reliable source. Don't you get that ANYONE can create a website. The fact that it is written on a website doesn't make it a FACT.

So I'll ignore this then, OK?

It's not like I haven't quoted anything that can be attestified is it?

[Omen]

Oh and just because everything isn't true doesn't mean everything is false, which seems to be your position.

I laid out 2 facts which can be checked, the inference is yours to make, not mine.

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

So I'll ignore this then, OK?

It's not like I haven't quoted anything that can be attestified is it?

Mate ... don't state things as "fact" if you couldn't be @ssed.
My job isn't to prove you wrong...the onus is on you to back your "facts".

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Omen

Oh and just because everything isn't true doesn't mean everything is false, which seems to be your position.

I laid out 2 facts which can be checked, the inference is yours to make, not mine.

"Oh and just because everything isn't true doesn't mean everything is false, which seems to be your position."
too zen for me. Reminds me of "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get me!" lol

"inference is yours to make, not mine"
no... they are YOUR facts and YOUR implication is clear. You posted the facts (who's validity is extremely weak given the website you quoted from IS NOT a reliable source)....why not follow through. What point were you backing?... and tell us what you think these facts LEAD to.

[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

[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 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.

[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]

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

[Omen]

Originally Posted by ange7

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

[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.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ...eature=related

A much shorter mini video.

The pentagon thing is what I find the most suspicious to be honest. Why not release the official footage to shut people up if there is nothing amiss here? One of the most guarded buildings in America...there must be at least one tape from the many CCTV cameras that actually show the plane hitting it. Surely.

there is.

[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.

[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.