911 Truth Movement

[Baloo]

Who tried to previously destroy WTC7? Its policy was separate to the twin towers AFAIK. Certainly two claims were made.

Are you really going to be that obtuse ? The WTC buildings had been the target of a terrorist attack but because it was a different building of the same complex you think it should be dismissed as a risk ?

But lets use your view that there was a remote risk. The building would have had fire and other damage insurance. If the risk of a terrorist attack destroying the building was so low, the extra premium would be negligable. He's pay more but it wouldn't be a whole new policy, just a small addition.

If on the other hand he paid a substantial sum to insure against terrorist threats, then the insurance companies agreed it was a real risk so he was wise to insure against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

It says Larry tried to double the payout by claiming there were two attacks, not one. That goes back to my point that it's not surprising he tried to maximise his payout. It doesn't say he bought a new policy for this event.

I'd say it's better to not make assumptions at all until all the evidence has been thouroughly explained. Again, all most deniers are asking is for a complete and independent investigation into the events. If there's nothing to hide, why resist?

We disagree. If the premise that's being implied is as likely as ID, I'm not going to waste my time studying and debating every single point that someone thinks could be considered a cover up.

Read a few TM sites and you'll find all sorts of evidence that people think is suspicious and requiring explanation. Like I said, every aspect of this event has facts involved with it that don't seem to add up. If they did, no one would be asking questions. This doesn't mean they need to create an alternate hypothsis. In fact, their position is the sensible one: Investigate fully and draw conclusion later.

Did you manage to find anyone expert in their field that supports ID and hasn't been discredited yet? Let me know when you get to 2000 and I'll concede you may have a point.

All the TM sites, and the troofists have, is circumstantial evidence and a belief that there is a conspiracy but no proof.
How is that different to ID sites and it's believers ?

That's the thing. You really need to dig deeply into every detail of an event this complex to discover the truth. That's what people are asking for.

To take this stance you have faith and belief that the truth is not what has been reported. You have faith and belief that what the majority of the people believe happened didn't happen. You have plenty of faith and belief, but no proof. Now do you see why I think the similarity to ID proponents is so strong ?

I don't have the answer to those questions. Nor do I particularly want to speculate on them. However I do believe that almost anything is possible when it comes to the people who really control the world. They're playing a different game to the rest of us and I bet they have resources at their disposal none of us could even fathom.

Maybe. Jack Bauer would certainly attest to that. But to pull of what they did would need hundreds if not thousands of people in all facets of government and civilians to be complicit not to mention keeping their silence afterwards. The faceless power brokers can make all the decisions they want, but they couldn't pull it off by themselves.

In this WTC7 scenario you have the NYFD fighters complicit in the planned demolition of WTC7. After seeing their own die trying to save the lives of survivors, do you really think they would keep quiet about it ? Do you think they would be party to it ? Do you think any of the faceless men would ever think that the NYFD could be trusted to be part of this conspiracy and keep quiet about it ?

When does the season start ?

 

[Disco08]

From wikipedia

That seems to answer most of your questions.

How so? TV networks reported the building's collapse up to an hour and a half prior to the event. This may explain the imminence of the collapse but it doesn't explain why TV stations reported the news before it happened at all.

Willo, I searched the page you linked to for "TV" and "BBC" and couldn't find anything. Can you give me a tip as to where I can find a reasonable thesis concerning the station reporting the collapse before it occured?

 

[Harry]

But to pull of what they did would need hundreds if not thousands of people in all facets of government and civilians to be complicit not to mention keeping their silence afterwards.

Why would you need so many? It only took 19 ametuer foreigners with no contacts in high places.

The faceless power brokers can make all the decisions they want, but they couldn't pull it off by themselves.

Much better chance than 19 Arabs

In this WTC7 scenario you have the NYFD fighters complicit in the planned demolition of WTC7. After seeing their own die trying to save the lives of survivors, do you really think they would keep quiet about it ? Do you think they would be party to it ? Do you think any of the faceless men would ever think that the NYFD could be trusted to be part of this conspiracy and keep quiet about it ?

why would the firefighters be involved with the demolitions?

 

[Baloo]

How so? TV networks reported the building's collapse up to an hour and a half prior to the event. This may explain the imminence of the collapse but it doesn't explain why TV stations reported the news before it happened at all.

So the BBC were fed a script to report the collapse of WTC7 ? The BBC were complicit in this ? BBC staffers, not americans, have kept their silence on this ?

If it was a conspiracy, why would anyone need to feed a script knowing that the building would explode soon and the media would naturally pick up on it and report ? What purpose is there from someone to feed a script ? Surely people so smart and powerful as to create WTC7 would be smart enough to know they wouldn't need to feed stories of buildings collapsing to the media because they'd do it naturally.

Again, the thought that this is part of a conspiracy just doesn't add it. No, worse, it's not even in the equation.

 

[Baloo]

why would the firefighters be involved with the demolitions?

In the Barry Jennings texts he says the NYFD were telling him to evacuate WTC7 hours before it did. D08's premise is that people knowing it was going to blow knew it was wired up to blow. Hence the NYFD had to be in on it.

 

[Harry]

In the Barry Jennings texts he says the NYFD were telling him to evacuate WTC7 hours before it did. D08's premise is that people knowing it was going to blow knew it was wired up to blow. Hence the NYFD had to be in on it.

they were told hours before that it was going to come down. doesn't mean they were in on it

 

[Harry]

So the BBC were fed a script to report the collapse of WTC7 ?

so what's the explanation of them reporting it hours before it happened (apologies if it's been mentioned)

 

[Disco08]

Are you really going to be that obtuse ? The WTC buildings had been the target of a terrorist attack but because it was a different building of the same complex you think it should be dismissed as a risk ?

But lets use your view that there was a remote risk. The building would have had fire and other damage insurance. If the risk of a terrorist attack destroying the building was so low, the extra premium would be negligable. He's pay more but it wouldn't be a whole new policy, just a small addition.

If on the other hand he paid a substantial sum to insure against terrorist threats, then the insurance companies agreed it was a real risk so he was wise to insure against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

It says Larry tried to double the payout by claiming there were two attacks, not one. That goes back to my point that it's not surprising he tried to maximise his payout. It doesn't say he bought a new policy for this event.

Still, if he was able to make two claims there must have been seperate policies for each. If the entire centre was insured as a whole only one claim could have been made.

I also don't think it's being obtuse to question the motive of over-insuring. If I had a 99 year lease I'd insure only for replacement cost because the extra payment every month would add up to a small fortune over the life of the lease. It only makes sense to me if the insurer has some idea that such an event may occur. What I'd like to know, but can't find, is whether or not Larry over-insured against all events and not just terrorist attack. That would be quite revealing IMO.

We disagree. If the premise that's being implied is as likely as ID, I'm not going to waste my time studying and debating every single point that someone thinks could be considered a cover up.

The premise being implied isn't measurable. You don't know how powerful those running the implied cover up are. You don't even know who they are so how can you specualte as to their ability to cover it up? The circumstantial evidence exists whether anyone likes it or not. It should be fully examined if only to bring closure for the families that lost their loved ones.

ID on the other hand completely states their theory and it's been completely disproved. Not one credible expert gives it even the slightest recognition. Again, not even remotely close to the 9/11 situation.

All the TM sites, and the troofists have, is circumstantial evidence and a belief that there is a conspiracy but no proof.
How is that different to ID sites and it's believers ?

ID proponents are using bogus science to try and champion a theory which is totally bogus. 9/11 TM'ers are only asking for a thourough and independent investigation of the large amount of existing circumstantial evidence. Again, obviously world's apart.

To take this stance you have faith and belief that the truth is not what has been reported. You have faith and belief that what the majority of the people believe happened didn't happen. You have plenty of faith and belief, but no proof. Now do you see why I think the similarity to ID proponents is so strong ?

That's where the entire issue begins. People from all walks of life disbelieve the official narrative. Experts from every relevant field with no alterior motive included. It's nothing like ID in that regard as well because clearly Christian "scientists" trained at the "Alabama Evangelists School of Creation Science" have an alterior motive.

The more parallels you try and draw between ID and 9/11 TM the more it's obvious how poor the analogy is. In fact there isn't a single aspect of either that can be reasonable equated to its counterpart. If anything, almost every aspect of each is in direct contrast to eachother.

Maybe. Jack Bauer would certainly attest to that. But to pull of what they did would need hundreds if not thousands of people in all facets of government and civilians to be complicit not to mention keeping their silence afterwards. The faceless power brokers can make all the decisions they want, but they couldn't pull it off by themselves.

In this WTC7 scenario you have the NYFD fighters complicit in the planned demolition of WTC7. After seeing their own die trying to save the lives of survivors, do you really think they would keep quiet about it ? Do you think they would be party to it ? Do you think any of the faceless men would ever think that the NYFD could be trusted to be part of this conspiracy and keep quiet about it ?

Strange then that there's a NYPD firefighters for truth webpage.

You're now trying to give detail to a scenario that we possibly don't know anything about. Unless you know how much power the conspiritors have you can't speculate as to how many people needed to be involved. Certainly firefighters on the ground needn't have been complicit. They're only doing as they're trained and ordered. If they're told to get out of the building, it doesn't matter if the motive is to conceal controlled explosions. All they know is that's the order. It could have come from extremely high up the chain of command or anywhere in between. Still though it only requires one conspiritor with the appropraite power to make it happen. Again, you have no idea of a potential conspiritor's power so there's no way of knowing how much they were able to control the event.

 

[snaps truly]

Still, if he was able to make two claims there must have been seperate policies for each. If the entire centre was insured as a whole only one claim could have been made.

I believe he made two claims because he argued there were two attacks, ie, two planes hitting the towers. It was later downgraded to one attack hence the settlement was decreased.

On a different note, it's incredible the US government spend nearly $100 million on the Bill Clinton scandal Commission and only $15 million on the commission to examine the loss of over 3000 American lives on their home soil, and seemingly seriously handicapped in doing so. Seems like tring to find out whether the President having extra-marital affairs was $85 million dollars more important....

 

[Disco08]

So the BBC were fed a script to report the collapse of WTC7 ? The BBC were complicit in this ? BBC staffers, not americans, have kept their silence on this ?

If it was a conspiracy, why would anyone need to feed a script knowing that the building would explode soon and the media would naturally pick up on it and report ? What purpose is there from someone to feed a script ? Surely people so smart and powerful as to create WTC7 would be smart enough to know they wouldn't need to feed stories of buildings collapsing to the media because they'd do it naturally.

Again, the thought that this is part of a conspiracy just doesn't add it. No, worse, it's not even in the equation.

It's not just the BBC. 6 Networks reported the collapse up to an hour before it happened. Why? Who was giving them their information?

 

[Rosy]

It's not just the BBC. 6 Networks reported the collapse up to an hour before it happened. Why? Who was giving them their information?

Are there any clips of those reports available on the net? If the networks reported the collapse an hour before it happened I'm interested to know why the buildings weren't evacuated. What was the aim of the premature announcement and how it was worded.

 

[Disco08]

Try here rosy:

http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html

I believe he made two claims because he argued there were two attacks, ie, two planes hitting the towers. It was later downgraded to one attack hence the settlement was decreased.

On a different note, it's incredible the US government spend nearly $100 million on the Bill Clinton scandal Commission and only $15 million on the commission to examine the loss of over 3000 American lives on their home soil, and seemingly seriously handicapped in doing so. Seems like tring to find out whether the President having extra-marital affairs was $85 million dollars more important....

Yep, that's insane and completely non-sensical.

Seems strange to me the twin towers, a very prominent terrorist target and WTC7 were insured as the same entity. Certainly something someone with $7B to gain might exploit.

 

[Willo]

I believe he made two claims because he argued there were two attacks, ie, two planes hitting the towers. It was later downgraded to one attack hence the settlement was decreased.

Not sure that's quite correct Snaps.
Yes, he made 2 claims,
Court ruled there were 2 attacks
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Unless there was an appeal and it changed. My apologies to you if that was the case.

 

[snaps truly]

Not sure that's quite correct Snaps.
Yes, he made 2 claims,
Court ruled there were 2 attacks
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Unless there was an appeal and it changed. My apologies to you if that was the case.

If we can trust this site as accurate the original decision was overuled.

''Last, but not least, we have the story of WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein, who coincidentally had just purchased the center less than six months before 9/11, and then promptly had it heavily insured against terrorist attacks. The building lease was said to be finalized just six weeks before the attacks.

After 9/11, Silverstein literally made out like a bandit and was able to profit from 9/11 by winning a lawsuit against the insurance companies, claiming that 9/11 was two separate attacks, thus being awarded twice the insurance payout!

The total settlement was originally for $4.5 billion although a court decision in 2004 overruled the award and lowered the amount to $3.5 billion.

http://septembercoup.com/911.htm

 

[Willo]

On a different note, it's incredible the US government spend nearly $100 million on the Bill Clinton scandal Commission and only $15 million on the commission to examine the loss of over 3000 American lives on their home soil, and seemingly seriously handicapped in doing so. Seems like tring to find out whether the President having extra-marital affairs was $85 million dollars more important....

Where did you get the cost of the Clinton scandal Commission?
There were figures bandied around of up to $47 million but that included Whitewater, Lewinsky and other scandals.

As for the $ spent on 911
The US government spent $15 million, NIST (Federal agency taxpayer $) $16 million, FBI (Federal agency taxpayer $) etc etc. So it wasn't quite "just" $15 million spent by the US government. Other Federal agencies were also involved

This is a very interesting thread. ;D
There is certainly a lot of information available. For and against any conspiracy, figures put up and debunked etc. It certainly is thought provoking. Google is getting a good workout. ;D

 

[Willo]

If we can trust this site as accurate the original decision was overuled.

''Last, but not least, we have the story of WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein, who coincidentally had just purchased the center less than six months before 9/11, and then promptly had it heavily insured against terrorist attacks. The building lease was said to be finalized just six weeks before the attacks.

After 9/11, Silverstein literally made out like a bandit and was able to profit from 9/11 by winning a lawsuit against the insurance companies, claiming that 9/11 was two separate attacks, thus being awarded twice the insurance payout!

The total settlement was originally for $4.5 billion although a court decision in 2004 overruled the award and lowered the amount to $3.5 billion.

http://septembercoup.com/911.htm

So they bought the lease for $3.2 billion and received $3.5 billion in insurance.
So in effect a $300 million "profit". Less $110-$200 million p.a. in lost revenue.
It seems a lot of work and risk, for the Silverstein conspiracy adherents you'd think there was an easier way to make a buck.

 

[snaps truly]

Where did you get the cost of the Clinton scandal Commission?
There were figures bandied around of up to $47 million but that included Whitewater, Lewinsky and other scandals.

As for the $ spent on 911
The US government spent $15 million, NIST (Federal agency taxpayer $) $16 million, FBI (Federal agency taxpayer $) etc etc. So it wasn't quite "just" $15 million spent by the US government. Other Federal agencies were also involved

''President Bush is on record and well documented as saying that he did not see the need for an independent investigation into 9/11.

Bush refused to hold a full investigation of the 9/11 attacks for over a year, 441 days. (Sept 12, 2001 to Nov 26, 2002) The Pearl Harbor investigation took only 11 days to begin.

Shuttle Challenger Investigation - $75-million (LA Times)
Reagan-Bush Sr. Iran-Contra investigation - $47.4-million. (CNN)
Clinton Investigation - $80-million+ (CNN)
Shuttle Columbia Investigation - $120-million (RedOrbit)
Initial 9/11 Investigation was set at a paltry $600-thousand.

9/11 Commission investigation eventually spent a meager $15-million for the worst crime ever committed on American soil.


http://septembercoup.com/911.htm

Somewhere else in the site it mentions 100 mill somewhere...and you could be right about the money spent, it might have been one department, I'm not sure

So they bought the lease for $3.2 billion and received $3.5 billion in insurance.
So in effect a $300 million "profit". Less $110-$200 million p.a. in lost revenue.
It seems a lot of work and risk, for the Silverstein conspiracy adherents you'd think there was an easier way to make a buck.

Also take into account running and maintenance costs of the complex which were starting to mount up every year with the aging towers, and apparently there was a heap of asbestos used in the constrution of the twins which may have cost them a lot more in the future.

 

[tigersnake]

''President Bush is on record and well documented as saying that he did not see the need for an independent investigation into 9/11.

Bush refused to hold a full investigation of the 9/11 attacks for over a year, 441 days. (Sept 12, 2001 to Nov 26, 2002) The Pearl Harbor investigation took only 11 days to begin.

Interesting you bring up Pearl Harbour, It used to be like Sept 11 in western consciousness. It is also the subject of conspiracy theories. ie. Roosevelt engineered the destruction of the US defences in the Pacific to justify entry into WW2 which was being blocked by parliament at the time. Also, as a point of interest, most people wouldn't be able to tell you what day Pearl Harbour happened, it was etched into people's memory for 20-30 years. How long before Sept 11 fades?

 

[snaps truly]

Interesting you bring up Pearl Harbour, It used to be like Sept 11 in western consciousness. It is also the subject of conspiracy theories. ie. Roosevelt engineered the destruction of the US defences in the Pacific to justify entry into WW2 which was being blocked by parliament at the time. Also, as a point of interest, most people wouldn't be able to tell you what day Pearl Harbour happened, it was etched into people's memory for 20-30 years. How long before Sept 11 fades?

I was just quoting Bush, not mentioning it on it's own.

Funny, I have never heard any conspiracy theories in regards to Pearl Harbour, am I the only one? :hihi I'm sure at the time there may have been rumours though. You say most people? Are we talking Americans or just any people?

 

[tigersnake]

I was just quoting Bush, not mentioning it on it's own.

Funny, I have never heard any conspiracy theories in regards to Pearl Harbour, am I the only one? :hihi I'm sure at the time there may have been rumours though. You say most people? Are we talking Americans or just any people?

You ask 10 random people what day Pearl Harbour occurred and see how you go. My bet is 1 or 2 out of 10